I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, the government introduces the additional estimates appropriations bills. These bills are:
These bills underpin the government's expenditure decisions.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 seeks approval for additional appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $1.4 billion.
I now outline the significant items provided for in this bill.
First, this bill would provide the Department of Defence with just under $558 million, reflecting, in the main, additional funding for Defence's overseas operations; the re-appropriation of amounts between appropriation acts to better align funding with Defence's current work programs; and supplementation for foreign exchange movements.
Second, the Department of Employment would receive just over $115 million, primarily to meet increased payments to providers following an increase in the number of successful job placements and to implement the new employment services 2015 contracts.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2014-2015, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015, which I introduced earlier, and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015, are the additional estimates appropriation bills for this financial year.
This bill seeks further approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $241 million.
I now outline the significant items provided for in this bill.
First, this bill would provide the Department of Agriculture with $90 million for concessional loans under the Drought Recovery Concessional Loans Scheme. These funds will be used to provide support to eligible primary production businesses in Queensland and New South Wales who are experiencing financial difficulties resulting from the impacts of severe and prolonged drought conditions, or as a result of the combined effects of drought and the mid-2011 disruption to live cattle exports to Indonesia.
Second, the bill would provide the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade with just over $40 million for additional capital funding for a temporary embassy in the Ukraine, and for the re-appropriation of funding for previously approved capital projects that had been previously repealed as part of a repeal bill.
Third, the bill would provide the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service with just under $35 million for additional counter-terrorism activities, and to repurpose the Australian Defence Vessel Ocean Shield for transition of its ownership from the Department of Defence to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the bill and the portfolio additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015 is to provide additional funding for the operations of the parliamentary departments.
This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $114 million. This is primarily to enable the Department of Parliamentary Services to enhance the security of the Australian Parliament House, including the enhancement and upgrade of closed-circuit television equipment and access systems. It will also cover additional parliamentary protective service staff.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio additional estimates statements for the parliamentary departments.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015 would, if enacted, amend 33 acts, in relation to matters of a governance or resource management nature.
The bill follows on from the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2014 (PGPA C&T Act), which implemented a range of amendments to the enabling legislation of Commonwealth entities and companies to harmonise their operation with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) from 1 July 2014.
The bill is part of a broader public management reform agenda and represents the next stage in the government's approach towards streamlining and simplifying resource management and governance arrangements across the Commonwealth. While the PGPA C&T Act made changes to 242 acts to reflect the introduction of the PGPA Act, not all enabling legislation could be amended due to the complexity of some arrangements. This bill involves:
While many of the amendments in the bill are technical in nature, they provide greater certainty in relation to the operation of the PGPA Act.
For example, arrangements operating under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (the FMA Act) for the administration of GST obligations were continued pending further consultation with affected entities. These arrangements were only preserved until 30 June 2015.
The outcome of this process, which included the development and consideration of a discussion paper, was that these arrangements should continue, and the bill provides the necessary support for the continuation of existing GST arrangements for non-corporate Commonwealth entities from 1 July 2015.
Another example relates to repayments by the Commonwealth. The transitional arrangements in the PGPA C&T Act will be amended to clarify that repayments by the Commonwealth are covered by section 77 of the PGPA Act, regardless of when the money was received by the Commonwealth. Section 77 of the PGPA Act ensures that the Consolidated Revenue Fund can be appropriated when a repayment is required and no other appropriation for the repayment exists.
The bill also proposes amendments directed at improving efficiency and reducing red tape by harmonising and improving alignment with the PGPA Act across the statute book. For example, the bill:
The bill also contains amendments to entity enabling legislation, as identified by ministers, to improve and clarify their broader governance and resource management arrangements.
The bill would amend the Air Services Act 1995 to address a longstanding issue involving the exposure of Airservices Australia to undue foreign currency risk, due to limitations on hedging activities.
The bill amends the Air Services Act 1995 to address this issue by enabling Air Services Australia to undertake activities to effectively mitigate the risk of adverse financial consequences to the entity.
The bill, if enacted, will support the PGPA Act and simplify regulatory requirements to contribute to long-term efficiencies, such as achieving improved governance, transparency and accountability arrangements for Commonwealth entities within the Australian government.
The bill is another step towards streamlining and simplifying resource management and governance arrangements across the Commonwealth.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
I present the report from the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests concerning an application from Mr Marcus Lee for publication of response to a reference made in the House of Representatives.
Mr Marcus Lee has made an application under procedure adopted by the House on 27 August 1997 for publication of response to references made about him by the Honourable Stuart Robert MP on 11 October 2012 in the Federation Chamber and on 26 November 2012 in the House. The committee considers Mr Lee should be given a response and the terms of response have been agreed to by him and by the committee. A copy of the response is on appendix 1.
In agreeing to a response, the committee notes as required by the resolution of the House of rights of reply that it has not considered or judged the truth of many statements made by members in the House of a person seeking a response. The committee recommends the response by Mr Lee at appendix 1 to references made about him on 11 October 2012 in the Federation Chamber and on 26 November 2012 in the House being incorporated in Hansard, signed by myself.
I seek leave to make a short statement on the report.
Leave granted.
The report I have presented concerns an application from one person for the publication of a response to references made about him in the House. The committee has recommended to the House that a response in the terms included in the report be incorporated in Hansard.
In recommending that the response be incorporated in Hansard, the committee emphasises that, as required by the right of reply resolution, it has not considered or judged the truth of any statements made by the member in the House or by the person seeking a response.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to make some comments on the Enhancing Online Safety for children Bill 2014 and its related consequential amendments bill. I note that this bill has been referred to a parliamentary committee for consideration. The closing date for submissions on that was 12 January and the reporting date is 3 March 2015. This, I believe, was an appropriate course of action to take considering that this is the first time that such codified or hard regulation in this area exclusively focused on the subject matter at hand has come before the parliament. Of course, we have some telecommunications specific aspects of the Criminal Code Act. There are of course provisions in the Telecommunications Act and the related legislation but this bill as a whole is the first type of this legislation to come before the parliament.
The opposition will be supporting these bills subject, of course, to any recommendations which may arise from the Senate committee.
It is evident that the path to reach this point of legislative consideration has been complex. I think all of us in this place and our community at large recognise the importance of this issue and a variety of views have been expressed on the subject matter of this proposed legislation in media commentary, in academic papers and also in the submission process itself before the committee that I just mentioned.
The issue of getting the legislation is right as possible is, I believe, absolutely essential. If we look at the path so far that we have taken to this point, it is instructive to note that this is a complex area of regulation. To give a flavour, on 22 January 2014—over a year ago—the Department of Communications released a public discussion paper seeking comment on several of the measures that the government proposed to take to help protect Australian children in the online environment. Submissions in response to that discussion paper closed on 7 March 2014 and the government considered the feedback it had received. By 6 August 2014, just as an example of comments, the parliamentary secretary said that the government aimed to be in a position to introduce legislation into the parliament before the end of 2014, and, indeed, that legislation is what we are considering now. It was introduced in the last few sitting days of 2014 and here we are today.
It is important to note that these are matters on which this parliament, if not in a hard piece of legislation then certainly in other fora, has been extremely concerned about. Just as an example, in June 2013 this House considered the issue of cybersafety, particularly as it relates to children. And I will quote these comments I made, because looking back on them they are as relevant now for this legislation as they were during the consideration in June 2013. I said:
When we talk about emerging technologies, a debate will always happen on how best to regulate where regulation should occur. While we have that debate, I think two things should remain paramount. Firstly, the safety of children is paramount—we call it cybersafety and we need to focus on the issue of safety—and, secondly, harm minimisation generally as it applies to users of technology.
I made some comments in relation to the development of technology and the regulatory challenges that presents for policymakers. As I noted:
… content does not just disappear. It probably does not amaze a lot of people here, who have been engaged in this debate, but you would be amazed to know, in society, how many young people in particular think that, because they have deleted a post, text or picture from their device, that content is gone forever. But of course it is not.
I cited what, at the time, was a contemporary issue of extreme concern for a small town in Victoria. It again presents an immense challenge in terms of behaviour as it applies to technology. I noted, from a transcript of a recent 7.30 report at the time:
One in five young women have posted images of themselves nude or semi-nude online. Nearly half the girls have been asked to.
In this story there was a focus on a small Victorian country town where Facebook forums, it said:
… have trashed the reputations of local girls.
In small towns, where news spreads fast, and even faster in digital format, the lives of these young people have been, in some cases, I think, irreparably damaged, when you look at some of the evidence.
These are some of the very complex and challenging issues that we, as a parliament, have an obligation to address.
When we look at some of the initiatives that have already been taken in relation to cyberbullying, you can see that it is a vast array of often disparate initiatives, but at all times you can see that this has been a great focus of governments in Australia at both a federal level and a state level. Just to highlight a few: the Australian Federal Police child protection operations team, which investigates online child sex exploitation; the regulator, the ACMA, has the Cybersmart program, comprising an extensive range of cybersafety education initiatives; there is a cybersafety help button; the Easy Guide to Socialising Online; the ThinkUKnow websites, sponsored in part by the AFP; the Online Safety Consultative Working Group; the Youth Advisory Group on Cybersafety; the Teachers and Parents Advisory Group on Cybersafety; and ongoing cybersafety research into the challenging digital environment. Taking all of those together, and also reflecting on the fact that even a few days ago, on 10 February, we had Safer Internet Day—a day that is marked not only in Australia but also around the world—if you have a cursory examination of these provisions that already exist in relation to cyberbullying, it is appropriate to examine what this bill before us proposes to do.
The primary bill establishes a children's e-Safety Commissioner. It sets out its functions and powers, which relate to a defined prohibition against cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child. Under this proposed legislation, a child or their representative can complain to the commissioner that they are or have been the subject of cyberbullying material and the commissioner may investigate such complaints. The bill sets out an expectation of the parliament that each social media service will comply with a set of basic online safety requirements, and these include minimum standards in a service provider's terms and conditions of use, a complaint scheme and a dedicated contact person.
Under this scheme, two tiers of social media services are created. Tier 1 comprises social media services that have applied to the commissioner to be declared as such. If I can summarise one of the key differences between the two tiers, as a practical matter one of the advantages that I see of the tier 1 declaration does appear to be reputational—largely reputational, but not exclusively. Social media services within tier 1 may be requested by the commissioner to remove material that has been the subject of a complaint as cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child. In contrast, a tier 2 social media service may be issued a social media service notice by the commissioner, which requires the removal of such material. The commissioner also has the power to issue notices to end users who post cyberbullying material, which can include a requirement for them to remove that material. The primary remedy for non-compliance with such a notice is injunctive relief.
If a social media service fails to comply with the basic online safety requirements, a request to remove subject material or a social media service notice, then the commissioner may make a statement to that effect and publish it on its website. Civil penalty provisions arise in relation to non-compliance with such a social media service notice. The commissioner has other functions, including the promotion of children's online safety and to coordinate the activities of other departments relating to the same. The second bill contains related consequential and transitional provisions in other legislation.
I now turn to the issue of cyber bullying of young people in more detail. Labor are committed to do all that we can to combat online child bullying. Bullying itself is a scourge on our society. It can have devastating impacts on victims and their families, and I am sure many of us, representing our local communities as we do, have been touched in some way by that fact.
The evolution of technology has forever changed the way we are all connected. It has opened up new worlds of communication, friendships, learning and opportunities that have infinitely transformed and enhanced our lives. Of course we also have with that an unmatched opportunity to feed our desire to be more innovative, creative and decisive in shaping Australia's future, and certainly our nation's youth have seized on the same. Unfortunately, however, as technology has evolved so too have some of the darker aspects of our society been given new fora to insult and harm. Whilst bullying has always been a blight on our young people in particular, today of course bullying does not stop at the school gate. It can hound our children from the classroom to their homes via computer screens and an infinite number of mobile devices. Gone are the days when bullying could be easily identified through tangible acts such as teasing and physical violence. While this form of what we might call overt bullying is an issue that must be removed, it is the more covert and insidious act of cyberbullying that has become more rampant and widespread and which is the subject of this legislation.
Today, through the advent of social media, many of our children are enduring relentless harassment and anguish in the supposed sanctuary of their own homes. According to research led by the UNSW Social Policy Research Centre, which I note the government has quoted, one in five of our nation's children aged between 10 and 17 have experienced some sort of cyberbullying. It is worth noting that many instances will of course go unreported. The often clandestine nature of cyberbullying has meant perpetrators do thrive incessantly on tormenting their victims without fear of reprisal. The consequences of this can indeed be devastating. Evidence suggests that students who were cyberbullied report lower levels of connectedness and higher levels of loneliness at school as well as feeling less safe at school. They are also more likely to experience difficulties such as inattention and conduct problems as well as severe psychological, social and mental health problems compared to students who are not subjected to such abuse. The opposition, therefore, strongly believes we have a responsibility to do all we can to prevent damaging outcomes.
It is in part taking into account some of those issues that the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety interim report and the government's statement of response more specifically in December 2011 focused on the issues of the online environment in which children currently engage, ways in which to support schools in dealing with cyberbullying instances and analysing information on world's best practice safeguards. There are a number of recommendations made in that report, which the government took into consideration and have, I am sure, helped inform the direction of this proposed legislation.
I mentioned that young people are being more connected and are content generators of a type we have never seen before in our history. It is also important to note that listening to young people when it comes to how cyberbullying should be addressed is fundamental. I draw on an article by Slee, Spears, Campbell and Cross in the Centre for Strategic Education occasional paper in December 2011. It is an excellent summary of cyberbullying as a new manifestation of an old problem. It states:
Defined as repeated, harmful interactions that are deliberately offensive, humiliating, threatening and power assertive, cyberbullying interactions are enacted using electronic equipment, such as … (mobile) phones or the Internet, by one or more individuals towards another. Cyberbullying can take the form of instant or email messages, images, videos, calls, excluding or preventing someone to be part of a group or an online community.
… … …
In contrast to face-to-face bullying, the limits of cyberbullying are difficult to define. For instance, a single image can be forwarded countless times to innumerable people, a message can be pervasive and difficult to stop, an aggressor can remain unidentified hiding through multiple profiles, maintaining anonymity and making it harder for the victim to defend, escape or identify (and as a result, act to stop the behaviours). Furthermore, cyberbullying behaviours can change and assume new forms according to different interactional settings, highlighting both the overt and covert forms of these behaviours …
I mention that because these are the challenges that no doubt are faced by this legislation. Indeed, there is the challenge of bullying itself. As I noted in those quotes, bullying in whatever form is repeated, harmful, deliberate and offensive. I turn to a more recent piece reported in The West Australian on 26 August 2014. Under the headline 'Old-school bullying still rife' it states that twice as many teenagers are subjected to traditional schoolyard type bullying compared with cyberbullying, according to recent research at Murdoch University. The author of this research said:
… the focus of anti-bullying methods should be not so much on the method used by teenagers but the underlying causes of the behaviour.
I think this is also a very important point. The article continues:
Schools and communities have limited resources and we need to be smart about finding ways to have maximum effect on harmful behaviours, wherever they occur.
On that point I simply note The Australian Financial Review on 25 August last year had an acknowledgement by many studies that parents need to be vigilant and active in the world of social media in order to understand its dangers. One of the psychologists states:
… the world of social networking and its relentless, 24-hour presence in our lives, and our children's lives, has created the conditions under which feelings of anxiety and fear in children can take root and flourish.
… … …
… children who might ordinarily have never become bullies sometimes display bullying tendencies with access to social media.
These children take to online to assert themselves in a environment where they don't have to use the range of emotions they use in face-to-face communication, so they might resort to some derogatory behaviour in an online setting.
As I mentioned, considering all these factors surrounding the definitions of bullying in both online and more traditional settings, and taking into account some of the research into how it should be addressed, it is important that this legislation is given proper consideration—and I think the process of going through the current Senate review is one that is very appropriate. All industry bodies and all submissions that have been made, not just from industry, should be thanked for taking part in this process.
Similarly, along with my colleague the shadow minister, the opposition has also consulted widely with industry and with a variety of interested groups and individuals on this legislation, and we do acknowledge the concerns that some have expressed with it. There are concerns around the practical implementation of some of the elements of this scheme, and of course parliament should always be cautious when it comes to imposing new regulation in what is an extremely dynamic and evolving technology landscape. I note, for example, the concerns expressed by the Australian Interactive Media Industry Association Digital Policy Group, which represents some of the more well-known faces of social media including Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo7.
It is also important to acknowledge many of the proactive steps being taken by communications and social media organisations when it comes to protecting people and taking action against online bullying. As one of the fundamental principles, social media companies of course have a commercial interest in innovating and, in doing so, doing all they can to ensure people can use their respective services free from harm and not be afraid to engage and take up more such services and thus allow innovation to thrive. As the AIMIA states in its submission, its member bodies:
… have policies that expressly prohibit bullying; we invest in a reporting infrastructure that allows the millions of people who use our services to report any bullying content … to promptly review and action those reports; and we undertake online safety outreach and awareness-raising.
It is also appropriate to note a recent announcement made by Twitter, a company that had admitted it 'sucks'—in the words of the CEO—at addressing the online abuse that occurs on its service and the need to enhance their in product harassment reporting and make improvements to its block feature.
I also want to acknowledge the outstanding work from anti-bullying organisations in Australia who work to protect our young people online. I want to specifically mention the efforts of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation on the recent launch of the eSmart Digital Licence; an online tool designed to education and protect children against cyber bullying. It must also be mentioned that Google contributed $1.2 million to the program to ensure the digital licence is available to all year 6 students across Australia—a similar concept to when a child obtains a pen licence to give up their pencil and use a pen. As noted by the AIMIA Digital Policy Group in its submission to the Senate committee, 'Online safety is best achieved when government, industry, and the community work together.'
Also notable—and I think we would all have local examples—are the efforts that are taken in our communities to address online bullying. I can draw very easily on two recent examples by the Quakers Hill Local Area Command, which conducts cyber-bullying workshops for parents on a regular basis for schools in my local area. It is greatly appreciated that these police take the time to engage with the community and to try and effectively reach out to parents. I was speaking to one of the police who undertakes this sort of work and he said, 'Yes, it is really effective, it is really important and we are really committed to doing this. This is an important part of police work. Prevention is a very important part of police work.' But, unfortunately, sometimes it is the parents who need to be there who are not the ones who turn up. A lot of people have commented to me that the parents and caregivers who end up being at these sessions are often very well informed, which is great to see. But we need to be vigilant in thinking about how we reach out to those parents who either are not aware or who are otherwise oblivious to the behaviour of their children in some cases, and who are causing such harm.
I noted in my previous comments the issue about implementation. I draw from the second reading speech made by the parliamentary secretary to illustrate a couple of areas where it will only probably be in the implementation, and examining how the commissioner works as it starts its business before we really know how these provisions are going to work in practice. To give one example on the issue of the two-tiered rapid removal scheme, I quote here from the parliamentary secretary's comments in this place:
Following investigation of a complaint, the commissioner may request that the tier 1 social media service remove the cyber-bullying material, but there is no legal obligation on the social media service to comply.
In one sense, one might say, 'How can that be effective?' But I appreciate that the reality is we have had in Australia—and it has operated very effectively—a co-regulatory scheme. In this case we have codified, to some degree, what had been in place under the Gillard government, which was a cooperative arrangement for complaints handling on social networking sites. This established a set of principles for things like acceptable use; a complaints mechanism; having an identified contact person; and education and awareness raising which, as I note in my previous comments, is quite similar to the parliament's statement of expectations that are specifically contained in the legislation.
If there is criticism that this provision is somewhat weak, I believe that it is important to recognise the co-regulatory nature of our scheme and, more importantly, as I engaged with the parliamentary secretary on this issue, that this rapid removal scheme needs to ensure that, regardless of the technology that develops, that technology is capable of removal and is capable of identifying the person who posted it in the first place. To this end I think one of the more instructive examples is in an article that was published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 1 December 2013, where police issued a warning on a social media messaging app—not one of the traditional online social media sites—called Kik. The article states:
NSW Police have described it as ''the number one social media problem involving teenagers''—but most parents would barely have heard of messaging app Kik before this week.
Kik's popularity among young people was highlighted by the disappearance of Sydney teenager Krystal Muhieddine, who left her house early on Tuesday morning in a car with a stranger before being found in country Victoria on Friday.
Krystal's parents did not allow their children to use social media in the house, but Mrs Muhieddine said she believed her 14-year-old daughter had been using Kik to communicate with the person with whom she left.
That is one challenge. The other challenge I raised with the parliamentary secretary is the issue of end-user notices. Quoting the parliamentary secretary:
The bill will not include a power for the commissioner to fine end-users who fail to respond to a notice … because the government is wary of imposing fines on children in this area.
Many of those who fail to respond to a notice could, in fact, be children. And:
The government anticipates that the commissioner will enter into arrangements with the police and educational bodies setting out the circumstances in which matters would be dealt with by those parties.
The parliamentary secretary told me that, as the commissioner undertakes their role, he anticipates that guidance notes might be issued. Even as a starting point, how does one serve a notice on a child, for example? Would it be done through electronic means? Would it be done by letter—as notices are often served? And how does one identify who that end user is? As I noted in my previous comments, often these are matters and actions that are undertaken under the shadow of anonymity or with fake identification.
Whilst I recognise that these are some of the challenges in implementation, the opposition believe that they should indeed be given a go in order for them to have a chance to prove themselves effective in addressing these issues.
In conclusion, the opposition will be supporting this legislation. We will see what arises from the Senate committee report and whether any substantive measures might need to be taken up. I do note that there is a statutory review mechanism in the legislation which is highly appropriate for legislation of this nature and which is the first of its kind specifically and solely on this subject matter. It will be important for whatever government, committee or body undertakes or oversees this review to do so, being mindful of the very important intent of this legislation. We do have a duty to do all we can to prevent and stop the bullying of young people, and we hope that this legislation achieves those aims.
I thank the parliamentary secretary for providing a briefing to the opposition on this matter, and I thank his adviser, Amy Dobbin, for facilitating these briefings. It has been greatly appreciated and has enabled us to form our views on this very important legislation.
I rise to support the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014, which fulfils this government's commitment to enhance online safety for Australian children. We live in a world where the internet is an integrated part of our daily lives and access to the internet is rapidly increasing. This is in large part due to the growth in ownership of internet-connected mobile devices.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority reported in 2013 that 53 per cent of children owned or accessed their first internet-connected device before the age of 10 and that around half of 14- to17-year-olds access the internet through mobile phones. Forty-three per cent of Australian children aged 14 to 17 have their own smartphone. This access offers many benefits and it has become, for many, an essential part of being a child in Australia. For our children it provides a means to interact with friends, share information, access entertainment and undertake research and homework. However, it also allows children the opportunity to access the internet under the radar of parents, teachers and other supervising adults.
Social media services have entered our lives over the past decade and play an instrumental role in the way we communicate with each other. In 2011, the use of social media was identified as the primary form of digital communication between young people aged 13 and over. In fact, social media was used more frequently than text messages, phone calls and email. Around half of children aged between eight and 11 use social media, and this number increases to around 90 per cent of children aged 12 to 17 years.
In Australia there are approximately 12 million Facebook users, of which 7.3 million use the mobile app daily. Last year it was identified that 89 per cent of 12- to 17-year-olds use Facebook and 65 per cent use YouTube. With smart technology increasing and becoming more affordable, we are witnessing growth in the number of children who have access to social media at their fingertips. We must, however, be conscious of the pitfalls associated with this growth in social media. As more Australian children independently access the internet without adult supervision, we are seeing greater exposure to online safety risks such as cyberbullying. Therefore, it is important to make accountable and deter those who seek to use this platform to target and damage Australian children.
Cyberbullying is an unwanted consequence of the emergence of social media. Social media is part of our daily lives and, over the coming years, we will see more accessible and affordable social media services available to our children. Ensuring the safety of children within this growing cyber environment is an ongoing and challenging task.
The provisions within this bill aim to enhance the online safety of Australian children. They include the establishment of a children's e-safety commissioner to take a national leadership role in online safety for children and implementation of an effective complaints system, supported by legislation, that will remove harmful cyberbullying material which is targeted at an Australian child from social media sites in a timely manner.
The government developed this legislation following public and stakeholder consultation, and carefully considered more than 80 submissions received in response to the public discussion paper entitled Enhancing Online Safety for Children, which was released in January 2014. The commissioner will serve as an independent statutory office with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, with the key function of administering a complaints system for cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child.
The government has been mindful of striking the right balance between capturing the full breadth of cyberbullying material whilst avoiding an excessive, heavy-handed scheme which may result in regulating material which does not need to be regulated. The bill stipulates that material must be likely to have the factor of seriously threatening, intimidating, harassing or humiliating a specific Australian child. The inclusion of the word 'seriously' intends to guide the commissioner and the courts so that material that is deemed minor, trivial or frivolous in nature is not deemed as cyberbullying.
Research conducted by the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales found that over a 12-month period around 20 per cent of young Australians aged eight to 17 will have been cyberbullied. Furthermore, it is estimated that 463,000 Australian children and young people per year are exposed to cyberbullying. This equates to approximately 1,272 every day. This bill establishes a complaints system for cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child. Complaints will be able to be made to the commissioner by an Australian child or by a parent or a guardian of the child. The commissioner will have the power to investigate complaints and conduct such investigations as the commissioner deems appropriate.
As the member Dobell I have been a strong voice for those who suffer from mental health issues in my local community. The social media phenomenon has created another complex layer to youth mental health problems. Deb Howe, Manager of the Children and Young People's Mental Health, CCH, commented:
We have experienced young people attending our service who have been cyber bullied on social media extensively resulting in extremely negative impacts on their mental health.
Helen Isenhour, Manager of headspace Gosford, stated:
The initial response to cyber bullying can include incredible stress, panic and anxiety—we see this firsthand in young people attending Headspace. Often the ongoing impact will affect the young person in multiple ways such as poor self-esteem, worry and stress about peer relationships, feeling scared or frightened and unsafe, and very often will go on to have detrimental effects on work and/or study.
The Central Coast region, tragically, has one of the highest rates of youth suicide in Australia. I am working with families, education providers and healthcare professionals to reverse and eliminate this devastating trend.
In December 2014 I updated parliament on the activities of the Dobell Youth Advisory Committee, which, at a recent meeting, raised the issue of mental health issues within our school system. In my address to parliament, I stated:
Our youth require a robust and adaptable support network to help them deal with the rapidly changing landscape of maturing from child to adult.
Social media makes up part of this challenging landscape that the youth of today must navigate. During this meeting with the Dobell Youth Advisory Committee I posed the following question:
What do you believe to be the leading cause of stress and anxiety amongst school students?
And they responded by stating:
The role social media is playing is now bringing what were once issues contained to the schoolyard into students' homes.
These are the words of current students who are experiencing and witnessing cyberbullying within their school community.
Increasing access to the internet through smart technology means that today's students are connected to one another continually throughout the day and night. Research published by the Department of Communications identified that, in 2014, 87 per cent of secondary schools reported at least one instance of cyberbullying, as did just under 60 per cent of primary schools.
The two biggest influences in young people's lives are school and home. Today many children find themselves unable to avoid or escape social media no matter where they are. It has been suggested that when children are physically bullied at school at least they know that they are safe from the offenders when they are at home. But this is not the case with cyberbullying. Derision, ridicule and hatred follow the victim from the schoolyard to their bedroom. There is literally no escaping from the bullying.
There is a perception amongst the community that cyberbullying is more difficult to detect and that those engaging in such activities are less likely to face consequences for their actions. As such the impacts of cyberbullying remain relatively unreported, and perpetrators remain unaccountable for their behaviour. It often takes the most tragic of circumstances to expose this behaviour. However, it is important to acknowledge that cyberbullying occurs every day and it is often difficult for the victims to know where to turn for help.
Research conducted by the University of New South Wales indicates a stronger association between cyberbullying and suicidal ideation compared to traditional bullying. A person behind a keyboard may not realise that their words can damage someone's self-esteem and state of mind, which can ultimately lead to depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts.
Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that suicide rates in 15 to 19-year-olds have steadily increased since 2008, and from 2011 to 2012 increased by 10 per cent. In January 2012 a 14-year-old Melbourne schoolgirl took her own life after suffering from bullying. In September 2013 a 15-year-old Tasmanian schoolgirl took her life after being bullied—including cyberbullying. And earlier that year, a 13-year-old Sydney girl took her life after relentless bullying.
These cases are only the tip of a much larger and potentially deadlier iceberg. The Australian Communications and Media Authority have identified that 21 per cent of 14- to 15-year-olds and 16 per cent of 16- to 17-year-olds reported being subjected to cyberbullying. The Department of Communications released research in August 2014 which identify that 20 per cent of children aged eight to 17 in Australia experienced cyberbullying in the preceding 12 months. A case study from the National Children's and Youth Law Centre found that Facebook was the main platform used for cyberbullying, accounting for 43 per cent of all instances.
Until now there has not been a regulatory framework in which to deal with people who take to the internet seeking to cause harm to others. This bill will establish a two-tiered scheme for the removal of cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child from social media sites. Parliament will establish a statement of expectations stipulating that social media services will comply with certain basic online safety requirements, those being that a social media service has: terms of use that prohibit the posting of cyberbullying material; a complaints scheme under which end users of the service can seek to have material that breaches the service's terms of use removed; and a contact person for the commissioner to deal with.
Social media services will be required to apply to the commissioner for declaration as a tier 1 social media service. The commissioner will then be required to declare that the service complies with the basic online safety requirements as prescribed above. In response to a complaint, the commissioner will have the power to request the provider of a tier 1 service to remove cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child within 48 hours. Should the social media service repeatedly fail in their obligation to protect Australian children over a 12-month period, or should the commissioner conclude that the service does not comply with the basic online safety requirements, the commissioner may revoke the service's tier 1 status and class it as a tier 2 social media service.
Tier 2 social media services will be declared by the Minister for Communications following a recommendation from the commissioner and subject to direct regulation. In response to a complaint, the commissioner will have the power to issue a 'social media service notice' to the provider of a tier 2 service. This will require the provider to remove cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child within 48 hours. A person who fails to comply with a social media service notice may be subject to a financial penalty, an enforceable undertaking or injunction.
By defining cyberbullying material and clearly identifying a complaints resolution system, we are ensuring that people are aware of the consequences of engaging in cyberbullying. The legislation also ensures that social media providers are aware of their responsibilities by prescribing the online safety of Australian children using their service. The commissioner will maintain a register of tier 1 and 2 social media services and will also be able to publish statements about non-compliant providers. This means, if a social media provider is non-compliant with the basic online safety requirements, a request for the removal of cyberbullying material or a social media service notice, they will be publicly named.
This legislation also provides the commissioner with power to deal with individuals who engage in cyberbullying against an Australian child. The bill will enable the commissioner to issue a notice to a person who posts cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child. The notice will require that person to take all reasonable steps to ensure the removal of the material, refrain from posting further material targeted at the child and apologise to the child.
The government is committed to the success of these reforms and will provide $6.7 million this financial year and approximately $11 million per annum thereafter to ensure the commissioner has the resources to conduct their duties. This is a serious issue which requires the involvement of the entire community. Together, we will hold cyberbullies to account for their actions. This is why I will continue to work closely with local schools and families within my electorate to address the issue of cyberbullying and develop effective responses that will protect our children.
As members of parliament, most if not all of us are subjected to cyberbullying on a daily basis. I will not be intimidated or bullied by these cowards who hide behind a keyboard, but, if you target children, you should be ashamed of yourselves. That is why this government is implementing a framework aimed to protect Australian children. This legislation is an important first step in declaring society will not tolerate cyberbullying and its adverse impact on our children. This legislation provides legislative authority to protect the most vulnerable users of the internet—and that is our children—from bullies who hide behind keyboards and seek to abuse and harass Australian children. As I said before, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves. It is about time that you were held accountable for your actions. I commend this bill to the House.
As previous speakers have outlined, the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014 will enable the government to appoint a commissioner with the power to order large social media services and individuals to remove offensive material posted online. Under this bill, a Children's e-Safety Commissioner office will be set up to crack down on online bullying. Companies will face fines of up to $17,000 per day if material targeting children is not removed, and individuals could face legal action under existing criminal laws. Individuals could be reported to police by the commissioner if material continues to be posted online.
In essence, this bill builds on the good work that was started by the previous Labor government. For a long time, it has been acknowledged by people in this House that more work needs to be done to catch up with the digital age. It is true, as previous speakers have said, that the bullying that a child can face online can be just as harmful as the bullying that they face in the playground—hence the need for all governments and all people involved to speak up and act in this area.
Research from the University of New South Wales has found that roughly one in five children in Australia is reported to have been bullied online. It is an alarming statistic to think that one in five children has been subject to bullying online. As the chief executive of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation has said, there is no difference between somebody who is bullied online and somebody who faces bullying face to face. They are different methods but both can cause enormous harm.
The challenge with all bullying is giving children the confidence to speak up, whether it be face to face or online, and to be able to share what they have experienced with their parents, their peers, their teachers and other people in their environment. Whilst there are laws in every state and territory which cover all forms of bullying, this bill supports those laws for the digital age.
As I mentioned, this bill builds on the good work of the previous Labor government. The previous Labor government established a voluntary, non-binding protocol that was developed in response to recommendations to a 2011 parliamentary committee report on cybersafety. It was announced by the former Prime Minister that a new school education program would be rolled out to help combat cyberbullying.
I will just take a moment to highlight two local examples from my community where schools and students took up that challenge and were actively involved in tackling this issue. Josh Murdoch, who is a student from Castlemaine Secondary College, took a stand to say he was someone who was subjected to cyberbullying. The year 10 student amassed more than 400 votes in a government supported film competition, Back Me Up. The aim of the program is to eliminate cyberbullying. He made a short film called Stand Up! Don't Stand Down, which at the time was one of the top five people's choices. Josh said it was his personal aspect that he believed made the film so popular with his peers.
The 15-year-old said that he had been a victim of cyberbullying and wanted other victims to know that there was support. He said at the time he did not make the video to be popular but made the short film to highlight his experience and to encourage others to speak up. He said that people need to understand that they are not alone and that there is help to overcome the fears associated with cyberbullying. A quarter of Australian children report that they have been cyberbullied. Whether it be one in five or a quarter, whichever research you turn to, cyberbullying appears to be an ongoing problem in our school community.
Another school in our area that has been working quite hard to tackle cyberbullying is the Bendigo South East Secondary School. The Bendigo South East Secondary School was the first eSmart accredited school in Victoria, with an initiative that they introduced to tackle cyberbullying. The school's information technology coordinator, Jill Fitzgerald, said in an article to the Bendigo Advertiser that school representatives at the school council brought together teachers, students and parents to work out new policies on the use of computers. They made a code that they encouraged all students to be involved in. The program, which was developed in coordination with the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, will be rolled out to all schools with state funding. I seek leave to continue my remarks at another time.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That business intervening before notice No. 2, Government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the matter be referred to the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
This bill was introduced by the government on 14 November 2013. We are finally moving towards the passage of this bill, nearly 15 months later. This is due to Labor opposing this government all the way in implementing a measure that it itself had proposed. Labor's hypocrisy in this regard has reached new heights. The bill as introduced is essentially in the same terms as the bill that the Labor government themselves introduced on 26 June 2013. Labor's bill was not passed before the election was called. It was one of the 92 announced but not enacted measures that government inherited on coming into office. What is interesting, though, is that not only had Labor announced this measure and introduced the legislation, it had banked the budget impact. It had banked the revenue and then failed to legislate the measure.
Labor's bill would have resulted in a gain to revenue of $1.1 billion over the forward estimates. Labor's opposition to its own measures in the other place amounts to Labor committing to this policy and a further $1.1 billion deterioration of the budget bottom line.
Under the bill we introduced in November 2013—which, as I said, was essentially the same terms as Labor's bill—access to the R&D tax incentive would be restricted to companies with an aggregated assessable income of less than $20 billion. Labor's opposition to this measure amounts to $1.1 billion gift to the biggest businesses in our country.
What has happened now? Labor are opposing their own bill. Labor are seeking to stand in the way of a measure they initiated and then banked the benefits of in their 2013-14 budget. What we have now is Labor in opposition opposing their own savings measure and gifting the biggest businesses in our country a $1.1 billion gift.
I must recognise the substantial contribution of our outstanding finance minister, Mathias Cormann, and the collaborative work he has done with the Palmer United Party and the crossbenchers. I particularly want to highlight the thoughtful and constructive engagement of Senator Zhenya Wang and Senator Glenn Lazarus. I also want to acknowledge the work of Senator Xenophon, who, in bringing his insights and the capacity of the Senate reference committee, helped to fine tune the measures that have now been returned to this chamber.
We have come up with a legislative response that ensures that the measure will be fair to businesses that produce most of their revenue in Australia, and those businesses that mainly produce their revenue in other countries.
There was a briefing by Treasury, extensive discussions with the private sector R&D consultants, and the Palmer United Party amendments were workshopped and canvassed amongst members of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on 24 November. I note that this bill, as originally introduced by the government, was the subject of a reference to the House of Representatives Economics Committee in March last year. This measure has been workshopped to death.
The amendments now under consideration in this place will, instead, introduce a cap of $100 million on the amount of eligible R&D expenditure that companies can claim at the standard rates under the R&D tax incentive framework. For expenditure beyond $100 million, companies will be able to claim a non-refundable tax offset at the corporate tax rate, which is broadly equivalent to claiming these R&D expenditures as a normal deduction. Small and medium-sized companies, which are typically more responsive to tax incentives for innovation, will benefit.
These amendments represent a fair and sensible outcome. As I have already noted, the amendments were the subject of briefing to members of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee last November. The other chamber debated the amendments for two hours on the Monday just passed before passing the amendments now before us. Labor opposed these sensible and considered measures and the refinements that have been developed in partnership with the Senate crossbenchers, and wanted to gift the largest businesses in our country a $1.1 billion windfall.
Treasury's advice is that fewer than 25 companies are expected to be affected by these amendments. The vast majority of companies claiming the research and development tax incentive will not be affected. Businesses are motivated to invest in R&D by a range of economic and commercial factors as well as incentives offered through the tax system. Adjustments to the level of government support for R&D are not the sole determining factor of the level of R&D expenditure in Australia.
Under the expenditure cap, Australian and foreign resident companies will be eligible for the R&D tax incentive and continue to receive a substantial tax benefit. This addresses concerns about the perceived discriminatory effect of the original measure on Australian resident companies. (Extension of time granted)A R&D expenditure cap of $100 million—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
That is $100 million, member for Hunter. You are looking to gift those above that with $1.1 billion. A R&D expenditure $100 million will achieve revenue gains approximately equal to the revenue gains from the original measure contained in this bill. I again emphasise: they were measures banked and delivered by the former Labor government. This ensures that these changes will still play an important part in the government's repair job.
I commend these measures to the House. They have been under consideration for some time and they will ensure that the R&D tax incentive system is supportive of Australian enterprise. These amendments that we are now considering had failed to pass the Senate. Labor's hypocritical opposition would have cost the budget $1.35 billion over the current forward estimates. I commend these amendments to the House and ask that all sides of the chamber support this sensible measure.
Question agreed to.
As I was saying, Bendigo South East College in my electorate was the first school in Victoria to be accredited as an eSmart school. It demonstrates a whole-of-school approach to tackling the issue of cyber bullying. Ms Fitzgerald of the school said that she hoped that this particular program the school was implementing would help clarify teachers', parents and the students legal responsibilities in dealing with cyber bullying. She said that current laws are struggling to keep up with the improvements in technology and the practices that come with those technologies. Ms Fitzgerald believed that setting in place procedures and practices that were discussed openly with students and parents would allow the whole school community to understand its responsibilities.
It is challenging for schools to be on top of everything that not only happens in the classroom but also in the virtual classroom and that not only happens in the playground but also in the virtual playground. She said that there was definitely a need for students to engage their parents and for parents to engage their students to understand the new eSmart accreditation at the school. This is another demonstration of another school stepping up and saying it understands the complexities of this problem and wants to be proactive in getting on top of tackling cyber bullying within the school community. This came about not because of this legislation but because of state and federal governments previously encouraging schools to take up education programs. A point that we need to make in this debate is that whilst it is good that we are establishing a commissioner, we need to continue to encourage and fund programs in our schools and in our community. The education role cannot be underestimated in tackling this issue of cyber bullying.
The former Labor government, apart from announcing new education programs to help combat cyber bullying also, as a result of a 2011 parliamentary committee report into cyber safety, developed a voluntary non-binding protocol in response to the recommendations. Companies such as Facebook, Google, YouTube, Yahoo, Microsoft all signed up to this protocol that committed them to a robust process of looking for and acting upon complaints, establishing clear guidelines to users about acceptable behaviour online as well as providing education and awareness programs. At the time, Prime Minister Gillard called the protocol a step forward by the giants of social media but added there were more steps needed to be taken. This is an issue that we have all been proactive about for quite some time.
At the time, the Prime Minister also said, in words that we many of us will agree with, that we all know what it feels like to be in a room of people, perhaps back your school days, where you felt humiliated in front of the class or in front of your sporting team. At that time, it may have been 20 or 30 people. Many of us live with the feeling of humiliation in front of thousands of people or indeed tens of thousands of people because of the social media environment. Online, there is a fear that it could be tens of thousands witnessing the trauma you are going through. The ongoing impact of cyber bullying we have heard from other speakers here today. Those words of two years ago are as true today. And that is why this bill will continue the good work that has been started by previous governments.
However, there are some concerns with what has been put forward. Industry and community consultation needs to occur with these particular proposals and that is why it is important that this legislation be referred to a Senate committee—to make sure we are bringing community industry with us. This piece of legislation does create a new commissioner. To ensure that it is effective, we need to make sure, just like Bendigo South East College has done, that we engage all elements of the community that will be engaged by this commissioner so that the commissioner and the purpose of the commissioner do actually succeed.
Labor is conscious of concerns that have been raised about some parts of the sector. It must be noted that internet companies like Google and Microsoft have said that existing state and territory laws already prohibit cyberbullying and that they are already engaged to remove offensive material under state laws. As I have already mentioned, there is also a voluntary code that these companies have signed up to, so we need to make sure that, when establishing the commissioner, the role interacts with the framework that we already have in place. That is why it is important that this bill be referred to a Senate committee, to make sure it does exactly that.
To give credit to the parliamentary secretary, these comments have been acknowledged publicly. In the media he said:
We are conscious of not imposing any more additional regulatory burden than is necessary to keep Australian children safe online.
This is an acknowledgement that we need to work together with the other authorities, with the Australian community and with state jurisdictions as well as the companies to make sure we have a commissioner role that works. Nevertheless, when we are talking about protecting our children from online bullying, it is worth giving it a go.
Finally, in this debate I believe that we need to take a moment to stop and look at our own behaviour as the political class. We know that children model adult behaviour, so this is an important time to remember that what we do online, what we do in this place, how we treat one another, needs to be recognised. If we want our children to treat each other with respect and to not bully one another, then we need to be open and transparent about our conversations. And if we are engaged in political debate then we need to debate the issues and not the person. It is important that we remember that.
In researching for this speech, I did pull together very various quotes and tweets that were put out during the previous government. We all acknowledge that former Prime Minister Gillard was subject to what can only be described as some pretty intense cyberbullying. They are not appropriate to read out in this House, but I did want to make the point that if we want to ensure our children treat each other with respect then we need to treat each other with respect. Quite often when schoolchildren come to see me in this place and speak about what they would like to see from their political leaders, the first comment that many of them make is, 'Be nicer to one another; don't be so mean'. It is a demonstration that children are picking up on our day-to-day behaviour that we have modelled. So we as a community, we as a society, we as a government and we as parliamentarians all play a role in ensuring that cyberbullying is not something that children continue to be subjected to. If we want to ensure this commissioner role works, then we need to make sure it is engaging with the key stakeholders to make it successful.
I rise today to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014. The advent of the internet has seen our world change, and not always for the better. While the dissemination of information is indeed far easier and quicker, the internet has always had a darker side. We have seen sites like Silk Road become an online market place for illegal drugs. There are literally thousands of websites promoting get rich quick schemes that fleece the unwary. There is the ever present threat of child pornography being peddled across the world, not to mention hackers who will stop at nothing to gain access to government and individual records.
Worryingly, we now see the trend of cyberbullying. This is where the social media pages of certain individuals are flooded with often contemptible comments that attack the individual. While bullying is still more common face-to-face according to the research paper The prevalence of cyberbullying in Australia, this does not mean the government should not act. Bullying in all its forms must be addressed. The state governments have all enacted bullying strategies in their schools and this is to be commended. Now it is the turn of the federal government to look after the area of its responsibility, the online environment.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority—ACMA—already has the Cybersmart website aimed at children of all ages, parents and schools and it has many great ideas and hints for staying safe online. I urge anyone who feels worried about their online safety to visit Cybersmart and use the tips to stay safe. However, bullying is far more insidious than the Nigerian oil scam. Time was that if you were bullied at school, that bullying ended at three o'clock when the last bell rang; however, with the advent of social media that bullying can now continue around the clock, 24/7. The previously mentioned study also reported that seven per cent of students encountered bullying at school and online and the offender was usually the same person. This gives the victim no chance to escape the bully, as was possible in the past. That is why the measures contained in this bill are so important. Cyberbullying can lead to death. This issue is that serious, with many cases of young people who have taken their own lives because of relentless bullying.
The Commission for Children and Young People and the Child Guardian say 13 of the 63 child suicides in Queensland between 2010 and 2013 are directly attributable to cyberbullying, and they say that number is likely conservative. This bill will establish the statutory office of the Children's e-Safety Commissioner within ACMA. This commissioner will take national leadership in online safety for children, with two sets of powers at their disposal for responding to complaints. The commissioner will have the power to direct a large social media service to remove bullying material. These organisations have the option of voluntary participation in the program, and such notices to remove material will not be legally binding as they have already volunteered to take part in the scheme. These will be known as tier 1. Those social media outlets that choose not to participate in a voluntary capacity and those tier 1 organisations who fail to abide by notices issued will be classed as tier 2 and any notices to remove materials served to them will be legally binding. These systems gives social media outlets the opportunity to do the right thing in the first instance.
I do not believe people like Mark Zuckerberg ever intended their social media sites to be used to bully and intimidate a person to the point they take their own life. I would hope that all social media organisations would agree to act on this matter in a voluntary way and in the best interests of their consumers.
The commissioner will also have the power to issue a notice to the person who posted the material, which requires them to remove the material, refrain from posting the material or issue an apology. The commissioner will have the power to seek a Federal Court injunction against any person who fails to comply with such a notice.
While it is true no new offence labelled 'cyberbullying' will be created, there remain laws available under which people may be prosecuted if they fail to comply with a direction from the commissioner. Sections 474.15 and 474.17 deal with using a carriage service to make threats, menace, harass or cause offence, punishable by three years imprisonment. Failure to comply with an injunction notice issued by the Federal Court is treated as contempt of court and could lead to a fine or imprisonment until the offender has purged their contempt by complying with the order.
The functions of the commissioner will not be strictly punitive and reactionary. The aim is to stop cyberbullying occurring in the first place, so the commissioner will take responsibility for: promoting online safety; coordinating the relevant activities of Commonwealth departments, agencies and authorities; conducting, accrediting and evaluating educational and community awareness campaigns; making grants; and advising the minister.
As you can see, education around the issues of online safety in a broader sense will also be a vital part of the commissioner's role. Having the ability to ask for offensive material to be removed is not as powerful as stopping it being posted in the first place by a strong education campaign. Targeting the problem at its source will hopefully be a way of teaching what acceptable and unacceptable behaviour is in the online community.
These bills are the result of extensive public consultation that began while the government was in opposition in November 2012. The public were invited to comment and a full public consultation began in January 2014. There were over 80 submissions. A draft of the bill was also shared with 30 stakeholders. The bill was adjusted to reflect a number of comments.
These bills do not replace the government's commitment to providing a software tool for computers and mobile devices. We continue to work with industry to ensure the best software will be made available to protect our children, but this software can only be installed at the discretion of parents whereas a Children's e-Safety Commissioner will have statutory authority to act on offensive material.
This is not a knee-jerk reaction but carefully considered and thought out bills, taking into account the concerns and needs of the public. These bills seek to remove content that is harmful to Australian children as quickly and efficiently as possible once a complaint has been made. I wish to congratulate the Minister for Communications on these bills. I feel they strike the correct balance and are a testament to this government's ability to consult with the community to draft laws that the Australian people want. I support these bills and commend them to the House.
I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014 and related bill. Obviously they deal with the issue of bullying that perhaps has always been endemic in our society, particularly amongst young people. It is obviously something I spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with in my work in schools. I suggest that the bills have captured some of the learning that has been going on in the education sector over the last decade in some of their content. Labor supports these bills and the introduction of an e-safety commissioner to put into place some of the ideas that are already in place in schools within our communities.
We have all read the headlines and can all relay the high-profile stories where bullying and its modern iteration cyberbullying have led to tragic results. In the real world, in our schools and communities, the impact of bullying, real or cyber, have no celebrity status—and when I say 'real' I mean of course in real time rather than on the Internet. This is happening every day in schools, in workplaces, in the community and, tragically for some, in the home.
As a teacher and principal I was trained to deal with real-time bullying. As a profession we had to adapt quickly however as cyberbullying emerged. I received training many years ago as a student at university studying teaching, but it is true to say that teachers learn on the job most of the strategies around protecting children and working with children to create preventative and protective behaviours. That was true in my case and for most of the teachers I worked with. We do that collectively and collegiately, supporting one another to come up with creative and sensitive ways of dealing with issues that can result in tragic consequences, as we have seen in recent times.
Like most in the chamber, we have been swept up, so to speak, by the disruption that is digital technologies coming quickly down the line and into our lives. As a mother I had three teenagers using MySpace. Does anyone remember MySpace? It was only eight years ago but it is the dim dark past now as it has been overtaken by other platforms. Like parents across the country, I had to establish acceptable practices in my home around my children's use of the Internet and at the time the dreaded MySpace. I dare say, like parents and teachers across the country, I had times when I was counselling the victim and other times when I was dealing with the bully. I hope in the process I was educating both in protective and preventative behaviours, creating awareness and making sure people understood the hurt and damage that bullying causes.
At the schools I was working in, we too began to have those conversations with students as issues emerged—firstly, from students interacting with social media from their homes and later with the wide use of smartphones whilst at school. We were dealing with new forms of interaction. The rude message was no longer left on the locker or scrawled in an alley on the way to school for all to see but posted and available for the world to see. We were dealing with this on the ground as the technologies emerged. Responsive schools and communities were educating families about the dangers of online use and about monitoring online behaviour, but the pace of change increased incredibly rapidly. In schools, in the space of six months, we went from debating whether to ban mobile phones in classrooms—in response to the concerns students would be distracted by making and taking calls and text messages in class—to managing something so much bigger.
Upon returning after a Christmas break, we found completely new issues for us to deal with. Those lovely new smartphone Christmas presents meant we were now faced with the proliferation of social media being used during school hours. The new protocols we had put in place the year prior were quickly out of date—digital disruption happens at a rapid pace. The best plans were disrupted by emerging technologies in nanoseconds. In the debate back then about mobile phones there were two schools of thought: some people wanted to ban them outright and others wanted to accommodate the new technology and apply standards and protocols to their use. These were intense debates around mobile phones. So you can only imagine the debates increasing in energy as we moved to smartphones.
My personal view was that we could use the school-wide debate about mobile phones as a vehicle for renewed discussion about good manners. As that became a debate about social media and it being used in negative ways, my personal view was that we could use the debate around the use of smartphones and the use of social media platforms for a conversation about bullying. I think it is fair to say that that is what occurred across our nation. It was important that as a country, as schools, as families and as communities we saw it as an opportunity, not just as a challenge.
The new debate emerged of course and change agents in education were publishing useful ways to harness smartphones for learning. Cutting-edge schools were introducing social media into classrooms to stay ahead of that curve and, in doing so, implemented programs to ensure responsible use of the internet. The education sector generally responded with positive plans for educating their communities on the value and the potential of the new platforms, as well as the dangers and what was acceptable behaviour from the keyboard.
Like all change, new challenges and opportunities emerged. The challenges around the 24/7 nature of social media are real, but as a society we have responded and we are here today as a federal government responding. In schools it was certainly a blessing that the laws, referenced by the member for Ryan in her contribution, already existed. It was a blessing that laws regarding the use of telecommunications for bullying and for harassment were already in place. In my experience, they were incredibly useful in working through issues with parents and students, because the knowledge that things were illegal certainly assisted parents and students to come to grips with the severity of those behaviours, and attitudes certainly changed quickly once people realised that what they were doing was illegal and that there were consequences.
But, of course, dealing with this issue is best done in a preventative way, and that is to educate our community in responsible use. Schools were very quick to bring those policies and practices into cultures. We were fortunate in introducing new technologies on a large scale in this country and in a planned way through the digital education program. This meant that schools prepared the ground by involving parents in, generally speaking, multiple contacts with the school—involving parents and students in those contacts in cyberbullying and awareness training programs. We held them for teachers, for parents and for students as part of our implementation programs. I think this added to broader community awareness about the issues that were occurring in cyberspace.
It also provided an opportunity for the whole school and community discussion about acceptable social behaviours. In fact, in many schools, as we heard the member for Bendigo outline, students were involved in designing those awareness campaigns themselves and strategies were embedded into the curriculum as well as into the culture. It brought the issue of bullying to the forefront again in our classrooms and in our communities, and it allowed us to highlight the hurt and damage that ensues when someone is systematically bullied. In many schools restorative justice practices were used and there was a lot of learning happening for teachers around the power of restorative justice practices. Where those hurt are acknowledged; where the victim is heard and empowered; where the bully comes to an understanding of the consequences of their actions for themselves as well as for the person that they have been bullying; and where the bully is called to account and has to make amends. These were important parts of the learning culture that was happening in schools as this digital disruption grew.
Of course, this is an ongoing issue. New platforms emerge and vast numbers of users mean that systems need to be developed to ensure that offensive material is removed as quickly as possible. I welcome the concession this week from Twitter that they had been lax in dealing with trolls—the new term for a cyberbully. This concession is hopefully a sign that the digital company will follow-up with planning and action to correct this. Perhaps this legislation going through could urge them to do that more quickly than they might have previously. Hopefully they will engage meaningfully in an ongoing way with the proposed e-safety commissioner to ensure that we are in a position to respond quickly as new platforms continue to emerge.
Labor are supporting this bill. As the member for Ryan so carefully explained, there has been a long bipartisan commitment dating back to the Labor government and a very careful, consultative process has taken place. In government we endorsed and responded to recommendations that came out of the cybersafety committees, and in opposition today we support the bill that is implementing some of those recommendations.
Labor have consistently called for detailed industry and community consultation on these proposals. We have facilitated community input on the legislation by referring the bill to a Senate committee and we are pleased to see that the amendment around a review process has been put in place.
There is still work to be done outside of this bill as a community going forward. I hope that our media outlets will continue to create awareness in the community, not so much through front-page stories about bullying as a sensational story but more about ensuring that parents are aware. As a community we are aware of the new platforms that are emerging. As a former teacher I can inform the House that our children are much quicker at finding new platforms and can often be involved in whole spaces on the internet before parents, schools and the rest of us are concerned. I think the media has a role to play in ensuring that we are all aware of what is coming and of what our children are involved in.
The establishment of a children's e-safety commissioner is a step in the right direction—assuming that the commissioner is properly resourced and can act in a timely way. Of course, trying to do something across a whole country may reduce the capacity for this to occur quickly, so I would suggest that setting up systems into the future would be a timely thing. Delays, of course, can be very dangerous. We need to ensure that the commissioner's powers are real and, more importantly, that they are reviewed and kept up to date. I welcome the inclusion of a review built into this legislation.
Most speakers this morning have mentioned the damning statistics of one in five children suggesting that they have been cyberbullied between the ages of 10 and 17. We know that it goes significantly unreported, so we need to continue to monitor that figure to ensure that our practices are helping to prevent those behaviours. We need to continue the conversations started at dinner tables, in classrooms and boardrooms across the country about building supportive, pro-social communities. We need to use the challenges our emerging technologies bring to present as opportunities to address social issues that have always existed but are finding new platforms.
Labor believe we must do all we can to tackle bullying in our classrooms, our homes and our workplaces, and we welcome this legislation as a step towards that. I look forward to working with others in the parliament as we continue progress in this area.
I rise today in support of the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014. I would like to note the children in the upstairs glass gallery here today. The bill we are discussing today is all about you. It is about protecting you and your friends online.
When I speak to principals and head masters of the schools within my electorate of Lindsay, they overwhelmingly cite the rise in cyberbullying as one of the greatest issues that they now see in so many school communities. Many have commented on the change in children's behaviour over the years. For instance, in the past it was quite easy for kids to pass notes. For school principals it was quite easy for them to control the environment inside the school yard. Now they are looking after environments outside the school yard, where much of cyberbullying takes place.
Parents need to know that their children are safe. This bill will see the establishment of a children's e-safety commissioner and a two tiered system for the rapid removal of bullying material from large social media services. For those who post bullying material, the commissioner will be given powers to deal with them also, and there will be a clear hierarchy to deal with the issue. It also sends a message to kids that bullying has consequences. It sends a flag that making fun of others is not harmless; it hurts.
Parents in my electorate of Lindsay are telling me that this is an important step in bringing cyberbullying under control. Debbie O'Connor, a mother of two, actually works in the social media sphere and owns a social media business. She said, 'I think that the online safety bill is not just a great idea but a necessity. I note that the majority of the focus is on children, as it should be.'
I have limited my son to Instagram and Kik, as I am concerned about how many platforms he could be involved in and how I could manage the monitoring of them. I have a rule with him that he needs to hand over his iPad whenever I ask him to, to do spot checks on both apps. I seem to be far more vigilant than many parents who tend to turn a blind eye as it is all too hard and confusing for them.
Debbie sees that part of her job as a mother is social media management. She says: 'I know how hurtful and damaging fleeting comments on social media can be.' You need only see comments on Facebook, feeds from different news stations or pop culture sites like Mama Mia to realise that people who say things about others on social media would probably never have the guts to say those things to their face.
My view when it comes to social media is that it is like leaving your child alone in a crowded shopping centre. You would always want to know where they are and who they are with. The same goes for social media. I tell my son that if he is not prepared to have it put on a billboard over the highway, then he must not post it. For some reason, some kids and parents think that posting to social media is private and that it allows them to say and do things that they would never dare say in public. I keep telling my son that once it is posted it is accessible forever for anyone to see whenever they want to. All of his accounts are set to private so he only has access to those he knows.
However, a recent incident had a number of us parents concerned, when a school friend had her identity duplicated on Instagram. Her girl's name and images were used to create a new account. Her friends thought that she had just started a new account and instantly started following it and allowed 'her' access into their accounts until inappropriate content started being posted. A friend notified the girl, and her mother immediately pulled her Instagram account down. This is not an isolated incident, and parents and children should have a place to go where they can report this type of activity. Debbie said: 'I fully support this bill as I think that it is more accessibility to the internet, more apps and mobile devices that is the problem.' And it is only getting bigger and bigger.
And it is not only Debbie that sees the problem. In fact, in 2011, students from 23 Sydney schools were in Lindsay holding a conference on cyberbullying. The keynote speaker, Professor Donna Cross, Director of Edith Cowan University's Child Health Promotion Research Centre, told that conference that not only was the issue affecting one in 10 Australian children but the problem was in fact growing. She went on to say that, while traditional forms of bullying, such as physical violence, were decreasing, the incidence of cyberbullying was increasing at the rate of two to three per cent a year. She cites that part of the reason for this growth is a perception that the bullies can hide—the power to bully anonymously. And my fear is that growth in cyberbullying could see incidences double.
Across the UK, police commands put the rate of cyberbullying at one in five—one in five in the UK. That is phenomenal. Last year, a report from a study at the University of New South Wales titled Research on youth exposure to, andmanagement of, cyberbullyingincidents in Australia found:
The estimated number of children and young people aged 8–17 who have been victims of cyberbullying in Australia is around 463,000, of whom around 365,000 are in the peak age group of 10–15 years old.
And to the children in the top gallery: that is your age group.
Former Family Court of Australia Chief Justice, Alastair Nicholson, speaking at a 2013 conference on the issue, said that current laws provided little guidance about how bullying should be handled. He went on to say:
The legal duty of schools, teachers, parents and guardians, as well as others in positions of authority, is not currently clear.
Appointing a Children's e-Safety Commissioner will also help focus the issue. It will also be a specific authority to deal with cyberbullying and, most importantly, will give authorities a clear approach on how the issue will be dealt with.
Chris Webster, who has lectured to schools right across Western Sydney, notes:
Cyberbullying refers to bullying through information and communication technologies—
put simply—
… "bullying for the 21st century using email, text messages and the internet". Recent polls have shown that one-third of teenagers have had mean, threatening or embarrassing things said about them online. It has the same kind of insidious effects as the traditional form of bullying, "turning children away from school, friendships, and in tragic instances, life itself."
Chris notes that from his research, the best way to combat cyberbulling is awareness of the issue itself. Take the computers out of the children's bedrooms, and bring cyberbullying into wider conversation within the family.
I believe a dedicated Children's e-Safety Commissioner will help lift the profile of this issue. I think there are some programs in the community and some good work being done. But the evidence would suggest those programs and that work needs the support of a dedicated body—and the Children's e-safety Commissioner will provide this. Some of that work has been undertaken by the Australian Communications and Media Authority through its Cybersmart Outreach program. It has been running since 2009. They visit schools and have so far met with an estimated one million students, parents and teachers. Part of their work is in providing presentations on how to recognise cyberbullying and, more importantly, how to stay safe online. They also provide schools with lesson plans, videos and classroom activities. It is a very worthwhile program.
The Children's e-Safety Commissioner will still be within the ACMA. However, this bill provides for an independent statutory office to be created within the organisation. In simple terms, rather than it being a small branch within the ACMA, it will be afforded its own department specifically focused on cyberbullying issues. And it will also have teeth, along with $7.5 million in funding to ensure this organisation can perform its charter. Part of that is the power to demand that offending material be taken down by the service providers and the power to issue a summons to offenders. As a body it will be equipped to handle complaints and provide better outcomes for those involved.
Penrith City Council is very active in trying to combat cyberbullying in our region. In fact, every year they run programs for Safer Internet Day on 11 February. In general terms, they work with local police on the issue. But they also offer resources to explain issues—from cyberbullying to sexting, digital reputation, unknown contacts in social networking, identification theft and illegal content. According to local police:
Often cyber bullying escalates from conflict that begins in a school environment. The content of cyber bullying messages are taunting and insulting and often result with similar messages being sent back.
While these matters cause a significant amount of stress and anxiety for the victims and parents, the actions rarely amount to a criminal offence.
I think that will always be the case. At the end of the day, you are dealing with adolescent minds. You are dealing with kids who act first and think later. Often the taunting takes place out of spite and without thinking through the consequences.
A Children's e-Safety Commissioner will act as a new circuit breaker—somebody who has the legally binding power to confront cyberbullies head-on and show them the seriousness of their actions, somebody who can force cyberbullies to appropriately respond to their actions and somebody who can take the issue to the Federal Court if the cyberbully refuses to cooperate. A new commissioner can also reinforce police measures to combat the issue and, in particular, re-affirm police advice that, if children are being bullied online or by mobile phone, they should (1) tell their parents, (2) tell their school, (3) tell the site and (4) tell the police if it escalates to threats of violence.
Locally, schools have been active in trying to combat cyberbullying. For instance, Nepean Creative and Performing Arts High School recently developed a stage play, Cyberbile, by playwright Alana Valentine, about online bullies and their victims. It was made into an event and performed at the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre in Penrith. They have identified that cyberbullying can start with something as small as someone chatting online about how someone dresses, speaks or even moves, and, at its worst, it can lead to suicide. A local year 11 dancer in the play, Charlotte Campbell, said at the time, 'It's very powerful and up-front about issues that society doesn't mention.' Again, this emphasises why the appointment of an independent Child e-Safety Commissioner is so important. It provides the chance to get this onto the table and out in the open.
This is a great piece of legislation, as it provides certainty and capitalises on the excellent work already carried out by authorities. It is important to strengthen measures to fight cyberbullying. This bill is about helping children to find their way through this problem, giving people help and providing hope to families.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014. I am particularly pleased because the students of Sacred Heart Primary School, Newport, in my electorate, are in the public galleries as I speak. I acknowledge them, in a debate that has a direct impact on their childhood experience—although maybe they saw all they wanted from the member for Lindsay.
While this bill has its merits, and it is supported by the Labor Party, it must be discussed in the context of this government's commitment to reduce the burden of excessive regulation and red tape on business. Regulation of the kind embodied in the bill before the House today is but one way that government and parliament can respond to the issue of children's online safety, a very important issue. But regulation is the way that the government has chosen in this context. This government talks a good game on red tape, and the member for Kooyong, in particular, in his previous role developed a very flash website to spruik the government's wares on the removal of unnecessary regulation. It is true that the member for Pearce, the new person taking on the member for Kooyong's former role, has not been quite as active in the promotion of this issue, or himself, but there are probably few in this chamber who could keep pace with the member for Kooyong in the self-promotion stakes, so I will not hold that against the member for Pearce! He has some time to come on. I digress, however.
You can look for yourself at the government's claimed record on red-tape reduction and regulation, at www.cuttingredtape.gov.au. The purpose of this website was to document the government's progress in cutting red tape. Under the member for Kooyong, there was even a bar on this website titled 'Track our progress' that gave updates on the 'deregulatory savings over the year to date' and the government's progress in the realisation of its stated target of cutting $1 billion in red tape or regulatory burden every year. The government currently claims to have achieved $2.1 billion in 'deregulatory savings' on this website.
Unfortunately, these savings are shakier than the Prime Minister's leadership. The vast bulk of the regulation removed through the government's 'repeal day' stunts has been trivial in the extreme. The statute law revision bills that we previously debated in this chamber made vital changes like changing the word 'facsimile' to 'fax' and 'e-mail' to 'email' in all Commonwealth legislation. No doubt this unleashed a productivity boom throughout the Australian business community. For too long have unnecessary hyphens existed in our legislation! The removal of these unnecessary hyphens was no doubt a particularly relief to small business. Small business owners in my electorate only want to know why the government did not wade into the controversy of the Oxford comma! And why has the government squibbed the important deregulatory reform challenge of the use of semicolons, colons and ellipses? This is to say nothing of the bonfire of inanities that is the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill. The bill makes the vital step of repealing 1,000 acts that were used to repeal other acts but no longer have a substantive effect. These are the kinds of reforms that comprise the 'deregulatory savings' claimed by the government.
That brings us to the bill before the House today. Significantly, the government seems to take no account of the regulation that it is adding when it is calculating the benefits of regulation that it has removed. Unfortunately the bar on the former member for Kooyong's website only seems to go in one direction. I have been keeping an eye on this bar. It is a niche area of interest, but it is an area of interest to me, as in previous lives I have spent far too much of my time dealing with regulatory burdens and page counts of regulation introduced by regulators and parliaments in this country.
So, if you will indulge my niche interest, I can say that the member for Kooyong's deregulation taskbar kicked off in March of last year by claiming $350 million of deregulatory savings. That surged to $700 million of regulatory savings upon the announcement of the repeal of the Future of Financial Advice reform package. The needle did not move after this effort to abolish FOFA fell over and the figure today stands at $2.1 billion in claimed deregulatory savings.
I have been watching this bar for some time and I have not seen it move forward in response to the bills that the government has managed to get through this parliament. But I will pay close attention and I will ask the member for Pearce in the future whether he is netting out the savings from the removal of hyphens from legislation against more substantive bills of this kind. Indeed, the needle only seems to move in one direction. While the government has been talking about its 'bonfire of regulation' in front of the cameras, out the back it has been busy stockpiling more kindling for future bonfires of this kind.
Despite its claims, this government has a 'regulate first, think later' attitude. The Howard government was a government that the member for Kooyong is very familiar with, given his employment at that time. While he was working for the previous Prime Minister, they initiated an inquiry called the Banks review. The Banks review was led by Gary Banks, a former Chair of the Productivity Commission, and it looked at the regulatory burden of red tape across every sector of the Australian economy. The finding that came from this review was that Australia suffered from what Gary Banks termed 'Alan Jones syndrome'. This may have dated the report somewhat, considering Mr Jones's influence at the time, but that is the name he gave to it. What he meant by Alan Jones syndrome is the tendency in this society for governments of both political persuasions to respond to issues, crises and problems in our society with a 'regulate first' attitude. The government must do something; regulation is something. Therefore it must do that.
As I say, despite its claims, this government is a 'regulate first, think later' government. Just in the telecommunications space, the space dealt with by this bill, the Minister for Communications and the Attorney-General have already announced plans to introduce regulation to force internet service providers to block websites involved in copyright infringement—a significant intervention in the technical nature of the running of these businesses. They have announced plans to introduce regulation to force internet service providers to police claims of copyright infringement made by rights holders against the customers of these ISPs. This is more regulation interfering in the way that these businesses work. They have announced plans to force internet service providers to retain their customers' metadata for a two-year period—a substantial regulatory and cost impost that the government to date has not even been able to fully scope out. We are well advanced into a parliamentary inquiry into the bill and the government has still been unable to tell members of that committee and members of the broader public what that regulation will cost to implement.
And then we have the bill before us today. As I say, Labor supports this bill. We are committed to doing all that we can to support the government in combating online child bullying. As our children's online activity continues to grow in size and scope, cyberbullying will become a more and more prevalent issue if nothing is done. It is clear that cyberbullying is already a monumental issue. We have heard contributions from members in this chamber before about the extraordinarily serious impacts that it can have on children who are subjected to it. The fact that it can result in suicide really brings home the gravity of this issue for all of us here.
Indeed, cyberbullying must be considered to be as important as face-to-face bullying. Probably most members of this chamber are advanced enough in age to have avoided the social media age during their schooling or even their younger lives. But, talking to the principals and teachers in my electorate, I can certainly see it in my schools and the really extraordinary impact that it can have within school communities. According to research done by the University of New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre, one in five young Australians aged between eight and 17 have experienced cyberbullying. There is also an average of 22 cyberbullying complaints per high school made per year. It is not only a serious issue but a widespread one.
In this context, in 2010 the then Labor government established the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety, underlining that government's commitment to evaluating better ways in which we could improve cybersecurity measures. In 2011 the committee released the High-wire act: cyber-safety and the young report. The report contained 32 recommendations that focused on a multifaceted approach that put education of children at its core. Labor endorsed and responded to those recommendations.
A government that was serious about red tape, however, would be asking itself whether regulation of the kind before the House today is necessary to achieve our shared goal of protecting children from the harmful effects of online bullying. In this context, take the submission on a cybersafety bill from the Institute of Public Affairs. They believe that the existence of a children's e-safety commissioner will not prevent or protect children from bullying. They argue that, instead of introducing additional regulation in this space, we should focus on the effective enforcement of our current laws. Speaking on the submission, Chris Berg, a fellow of the IPA, said:
There are a large number of existing laws which already cover any conduct which could be considered cyberbullying.
The Commonwealth Criminal Code already prohibits menacing, offensive, and insulting conduct on the internet. On top of that there are defamation laws, anti-stalking and harassment laws, and laws which protect against threats of harm.
A government that was serious about red tape reduction might consider in this context whether there was regulatory overlap and duplication in this space and seek to tailor this bill to minimise this impact.
Given the plethora of social media sites that are used by children these days and the seeming propensity of these sites to pop up like whack-a-moles, it may be that education and an approach focused on children instead of the service providers would be a more efficient response to this problem and that we should focus on preventative measures within schools to curb this online bullying in the first instance.
Another approach we may have taken is to spend more time influencing the social media sites and the platforms themselves to take an enlightened view of their commercial self-interest and to start acting on these issues of their own volition. In this respect I note the comments of the CEO of Twitter, a very large social media website, just last week in an email sent to his executive team. I will read from it at length because it does demonstrate the kind of enlightened self-interest we could leverage in this space. The CEO, Dick Costolo, wrote:
We suck at dealing with abuse and trolls on the platform and we've sucked at it for years. It's no secret and the rest of the world talks about it every day. We lose core user after core user by not addressing simple trolling issues that they face every day.
I'm frankly ashamed of how poorly we've dealt with this issue during my tenure as CEO … There's no excuse for it. I take full responsibility for not being … aggressive on this front …
We're going to start kicking these people off right and left and making sure that when they issue their ridiculous attacks, nobody hears them.
Everybody on the leadership team knows this is vital.
So some social media sites, after some time, are waking up to the need to address this issue themselves without government intervention.
I also draw the House's attention to the recent digital licence program established by The Alannah and Madeline Foundation, with the support of Google—another large digital technology platform. This eSmart Digital Licence program will be made available to every grade 6 student in Australia this year—almost 300,000 children—thanks to a grant of $1.2 million from Google. As part of this digital licence program, children who undertake it will use quizzes, videos and games to teach them how to be smart, safe and responsible digital citizens—again, targeting intervention at the children rather than from above through regulation.
While I support the bill before the House and share the government's objective of reducing the harmful impacts of cyberbullying against children, I do believe that more MPs should be asking whether more regulation and new regulators, as established by this bill—and it is not only new regulation; it is a new regulatory body—is the most efficient response to problems of this kind. I do believe that more MPs should be asking whether the government is really serious about its anti-red tape agenda when it continues to marching a suite of new regulatory interventions into this chamber. In this respect, the review mechanism being proposed to test the efficacy of this legislation in future years is important in this respect, and I do look forward to revisiting the impact this legislation in the future.
There is much work that can be done on the issue of cybersafety. However, genuine reductions in the burden of regulation require vigilance in the face of new proposals for regulatory intervention. To date there is little evidence that the government is interested in this task. However, I intend to speak out on these issues further in the future.
I note the comments from the member for Gellibrand. I hold strong views around the incapacity to drive underground the sometimes terrible things that people think and the sometimes terrible things that people say. The minute that you try to regulate in this space, you tend to drive bad thoughts, bad people and bad comments underground. Fundamentally, I do believe that. But, in this instance, when we are dealing with our most precious asset, when we are dealing with the future, when we are dealing with our children, I regrettably say that I do not think we have a choice and that all of us must do everything we can to protect children in any way we can.
The government have delivered on a commitment that we went to the election with. We have engaged and consulted very broadly on this issue through public consultations. More than 80 submissions were received from a range of sectors from January 2014 on. So it has been a comprehensive process—as it should be because perhaps there is nothing more important than our children. Consultation has occurred with community organisations; industry; education bodies, which naturally enough are particularly interested in these issues; government and legal representations; academics; and members of the public. The government have engaged properly with the community and consulted widely in the formation of this genuine attempt to keep children safer online. I do notice that there are some young people up in the gallery today. I remind them that this is about them. This is about keeping them and their friends safer online.
The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014 is an important bill before the House today. It contains a number of measures to enhance online safety for children and it was an election commitment by the government. It includes establishing the Children's e-Safety Commissioner and setting out the commissioner's functions and powers, and a mechanism to create an effective complaints system for harmful cyberbullying material targeted at Australian children. The commissioner will have two sets of powers it can use in responding to a complaint. These include the power to issue a notice to a large social media service, requiring it to remove the particular material; and the power to use a notice to the person who posted the material, requiring the person to remove the material, refrain from posting the material or apologising for posting the material. The measures in this bill are planned to bring a better and more rapid response to the dangers of cyberbullying and to keep Australian, and indeed Tasmanian children, safer online.
I have two boys. I have one nearly 16 years old and one nearly 13 years old. I look back on my eldest son and think of the period around year 6 when the use of deodorant could kill a small farm animal at a hundred yards! That was one phase. More recently it has been all about the hair. The hair seems to take on a life of its own. The point I make is about body image and the way that we appear. I guess it is no different to any of us. We all want to be respected. We all want to be loved. We all want to be liked. The phenomenon that truly is social media has taken this to another level. Talking about multitasking, my wife often talks about my incapacity to multitask—I do not suppose I am unique in that instance!
I look at my boys and I see that, whether it is with the television, the iPad, the phone or the little bit of conversation that we can throw in there, these young people truly are multi-tasking.
I do not think we can kid ourselves that we can eradicate bullying. I do not think that we can kid ourselves, at all, that we can eradicate bullying, but damn me if we should not be doing everything we can and everything within our power to make our young people safe. We want to see resilient, strong, confident young people, who understand that bullying behaviour is more a reflection on the bully than it is on the people they are trying to bully. Social media is real; we all use it. I know for young people, particularly my 15-year-old, life is influenced by the number of likes they get for a post. They feel that that is an important thing; I understand that. When it is a photograph of your sixpack—and it has been a while, Deputy Speaker!—this is important!
In the context of this debate—and we appreciate the other opposition's support of this legislation—we should never forget that bullying has been around since Adam was a boy, and we should not ignore all the other types of bullying that go on, not only with young people, but in workplaces and sometimes at home, often closer than we might dare to imagine.
The internet and social media offer a forum for human interaction which brings great social benefits, but sometimes things go wrong online, as they do offline. When this happens, the internet and social media, in particular, can make bullying behaviours more dangerous to the children who become the victims. The posting of humiliating or harmful photos, videos or rumours is often exacerbated by other social media features such as comments, shares, or likes, which can rapidly promote and spread content which is damaging for the individual involved. It can have serious effects such as anxiety, depression, behavioural problems and even suicidal thoughts. I note the presence of the Minister for Health in the chamber at the moment. Nothing is more important than mental health; it is a particular interest of mine. We all have physical predispositions that we can do nothing to control, but the things that we are talking about here today could be the triggers that may well exacerbate some of those predispositions.
I come back to the point that my wife and I try to bring our boys up as confident—though not overly confident—capable young people who have respect for others and understand that certain actions, whilst they might seem to be trivial or harmless, can have a terrible impact on friends and colleagues.
Research shows that one in five Australian children have been, or is, a victim of cyberbullying. Last year, the University of New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre found that, in its best estimate, over a 12-month period 20 per cent of Australian children between the ages of eight and 17 had experienced some kind of online cyberbullying. Think about those figures. That is one in five young people between the ages of eight and 17 experiencing some form of online bullying. Cyber bullying is most common in the ages 10 and 15 years, which makes sense because this is a vulnerable period of someone's life. It does tend to diminish in the 16 to 17 age bracket. These figures mean that the estimated number of children and young people who have been victims of cyber bullying in 2013 was 463,000, with about 350,000 of them aged between 10 and 15 years old.
Children can be cruel—that is no news to anybody. Human beings can be cruel. A few moments ago I was speaking to Victoria Harrison, principal of the Cressy District High School—which is in my electorate of Lyons in northern Tasmania—to get her perspective on this discussion. This area is incorporated into their health education part of their curriculum. Within each year group they have clear expectations about the way devices are used. There is a code of conduct for the use of electronic devices, which includes penalties for any sort of behaviour that is considered inappropriate, such as the use of Facebook and other social media sites in a way that would bring the school into disrepute.
I guess if I were going to give one message, though, to the young people that are just leaving the gallery upstairs, it would be that you can always turn off your device. You can always turn off your device, and nobody will ever know. You can block somebody that is impacting on you in a negative way. But, most of all, there are adults everywhere, whether they be in your school, in your family—one would hope—or in the police forces. There are good people. We would strongly encourage young people that are exposed to this sort of behaviour to contact responsible adults.
The bill being debated today contains a number of enforcement provisions so that, if a person fails to comply with a requirement under an end user notice, the Children's e-Safety Commissioner will be able to, firstly, issue a formal warning. If a provider of social media fails to comply with a social media service notice, they will be liable to pay a penalty of 100 penalty units—in this case, those units being roughly $17,000—for each day in which the service provider fails to respond. Those are not insignificant penalties. The commissioner will be able to go to court to obtain an injunction to ensure compliance.
The Children's e-Safety Commissioner will be established as an independent authority within the Australian Communications and Media Authority and will take a national leadership role in online safety for children.
In the short time that I have left, I will just come back to—and I note the comments of the member for Gellibrand in respect of—red tape. This government has delivered on reducing red tape in small business particularly and right across our economy: over $2 billion worth of savings in red tape, which makes it easier for business to get on with business. But in this instance regulation is required. Our children are our most important asset, and we should do everything within our power—it may not be a perfect solution, but it is a first step, and we should do everything in our power—to make them safe.
I am very pleased to make a contribution today on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014. It absolutely goes without saying that one of the chief roles for members of parliament in Australia is to protect young people who live in our country. This bill is not perfect. It is not going to solve all of our problems, but it makes an important step towards establishing a safe online community for Australian young people, and for that reason Labor will be supporting the bill.
Any parent of a school-aged child, or indeed anyone who knows a young person today well, will understand that cyberbullying is one of the most common, the most widespread and the most disturbing trends for young people today. I say this not because of the consequences, because we know that bullying has always existed—although I must note that there have been some very severe consequences, which I will come to later. I say it because of the unbelievable prevalence that online bullying has developed amongst young Australians. The internet for Australian young people is a constant part of life, and the bullying that takes place is an intolerable part of life.
I think it is hard for many of us in this chamber to really appreciate how much of a big deal this is for young people in Australia. I am one of the younger members in this House, but, when I was the age of the young people who are most affected by this problem today, I did not even have an email address, nor did most people my age in Australia. Photo text messages were a number of years away. Facebook was 10 years away, and Snapchat, Messenger and the other apps that young people use in a day-to-day sense now were a few years beyond that.
But now what we see is that all of those things, so new to us as Australians, are part of everyday life for most Australian children. Parents frequently raise the issue of cyberbullying with me as a member of parliament, and, when I talk to young people who are in this kind of target demographic of around grade 3 or 4 up until year 8 or 9, it is often the first issue that is raised with me about the things that are affecting their quality of life. I make those points just to say that there is no doubt that cyberbullying for young people is an issue that this parliament should be taking incredibly seriously, and thus I am pleased to be making these comments on this bill.
For those who are watching at home and may not have young children, or even for those in the chamber who are not aware of the kind of day-to-day significance of this problem, I just want to explain a little bit about the character that I understand cyberbullying is taking on for young people. We know that young people in Australia are amongst the biggest internet users. Lots of young people I know who are lucky enough to have a mobile phone will take it to bed with them, if they are allowed to, and lie awake at night texting their friends until the early hours. But, even for those who are using family computers, the internet is just a part of everyday life.
We also know that it is a very unregulated part of life. What we see is that bullying that used to take place in the schoolyard has been moved onto this online environment and, because of some of the features of these online programs, some of the barriers that used to stand in the path of bullying have been really stripped back. One of the critical things that we see is young people making fake profiles on Facebook or other types of social media and using those profiles to avoid what we would normally see as the consequence of bullying that occurred in the schoolyard.
We also know that social media has given the opportunity for young people who want to engage in bullying behaviour to say really mean and humiliating and hurtful things in front of hundreds and thousands of people, effectively—something that they probably would not be able to do in a face-to-face context. We also know—all of us—from our life experience that sometimes, when you are online and using a computer, you say things that you might not say to someone straight to their face, again just because of the consequences.
And there are so many other factors. We can keep digital photos now. People might send them in one context and then, when the situation changes, those embarrassing photos are shared with others, even sent to whole-school communities, which is something that I am sure anyone who can remember their time at school will just shudder to think of.
One other critical element is that the internet has allowed people to speak with each other at any time of the day or night. When you talk to young people about the effect that cyberbullying has on them, a lot of them just explain that it has taken away a place of safety for them. They feel that no matter what time of day or night it is, at the weekend, at any moment, they could be the target of an attack. That is a very stressful feeling, I know, for a lot of young people who are the victims of cyberbullying. I have heard a lot of young people talking about situations where young people gang up on one young person and bully and tease them online, again in front of many, many people.
The final thing is that, when we look at the options for young people about what they can do in the face of cyberbullying, there is no silver bullet. Yes, you can block someone from being online, but it is a bit like saying that bullying does not matter in a schoolyard context because you can leave the room, even when someone might continue to say humiliating things about you after you leave. The conduct and pain still occur, even if you are not there to see it.
We know that young people can be mean sometimes; of course, adults can also be mean. But you can just imagine, with the impacts that I have described, how the internet very unfortunately has opened up this new world of bullying for young people. Bullying has become a lot easier. Small actions are now capable of creating a lot more pain and hurt and, again, many of the consequences that might have stopped people from bullying in the schoolyard have now gone.
A lot of studies show that, on the whole, the internet is quite constructive for young people. It is important to note that a lot of young people talk about the really strong feelings of affirmation they get when going through a difficult period in their life. A lot of young people talk about the support they get from online communities. But it does have this darker element, and that is what the bill that we are discussing today is really targeting.
How are young people reacting to and being affected by these problems? We know that cyberbullying, like all bullying, tends to leave the victims feeling very depressed and upset. It can go from having a few bad days and low self-esteem to the point where we know that young people have actually gone to self-harm and suicide because of online bullying incidents, sad as that may sound. We hear young people talk about the fact that there is no safe place for them anymore. Although this is not a new problem, it is the ease, the damage and the ability to escape consequences.
I mentioned earlier the prevalence of online bullying. It is very fascinating looking at the studies which try to estimate how prevalent this problem is. One study says that one in five young Australians has been bullied online. Another study I am aware of shows something much more significant than that: the Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study found that, for young people between grade 4 and grade 9, a quarter are bullied every few weeks or more than once term—which is very common, very prevalent. I come back to the point that it is hard for us, as adults in this House, to realise how serious and significant a problem this is and how much it is affecting young people.
We know from some of the studies that it is people around the year 5 to year 8 levels who are most affected. We also know that girls, unfortunately, are a little bit more inclined to bully in these covert ways. One of the things that I found most disturbing, when looking into the material on this, is that some young people report problems with cyberbullying from as young as grade 3, so we are talking about quite young children who are getting into these problems.
Of course this is very important to young people, and because it is important to young people it is also important to their parents. We know that children who are the victims of cyberbullying can take those difficulties and their unhappiness back into their family home. I said that, at its very worst, bullying can lead to incidents of self-harm and suicide, which is incredibly sad.
I reflected, when I was preparing my notes for the discussion earlier, that we see hundreds of young people who are suffering from mental illness and for whom social media plays some role in their ultimate self-harm or suicide. I was reflecting on how this is actually a higher figure than the road toll often is from year to year, and how much emphasis and discussion and how many resources go into reducing the road toll. I wonder how many pieces of legislation, both in this parliament and in state parliaments around the country, are focused on this very important issue of preventing deaths on the road. We must spend billions and billions of dollars every year, as a nation, on this issue. Yet cyberbullying is not very frequently in discussions.
I think that reflects a few things about the political process. We know that this is an issue that prevalently affects young people, in particular young people and children. I wonder if there is less focus on this than we would see if it were adults and voters who were affected by this problem. It is an important reminder to us, as representatives, that although the people who are affected by this problem are not our voters, it is just as important that we listen to them, that we seek them out and that we talk to them about problems that are affecting them—because this problem is leading to more deaths in Australia than the road toll, and I think it should be getting some commensurate level of attention.
The second thing I would note is that, of course, it is a very difficult problem to stop. This is about people's behaviour in an environment where their behaviour is largely unregulated. But it is a problem that goes right to the heart of life in modern Australia. I know there are a lot of people that sit on this Labor side, particularly on our Labor front bench, who are parents of children who might be affected by this problem. Of course, for that reason, we are very pleased to support the legislation.
I want to talk in a little more detail about what this bill proposes to do about this very difficult problem. There are two essential elements to the scheme that is being set up by this bill. The first is the establishment of a children's e-safety commissioner. The role of the e-safety commissioner will be to crack down on online bullying. We know that a child who is the victim of online bullying will now be able to make a complaint, or their parent will be to make a complaint, to the commissioner. The commissioner will have the power to issue notices to social media organisations with which they must comply, and the materials will need to be taken down. A fine is imposed as part of the legislation, which will force social media companies to pay a certain amount of money every day that materials remain online after the commissioner has required that they be taken down.
The bill also sets out some expectations for social media organisations, because I think it is very important that we acknowledge that social media organisations need to do better at preventing this problem. In recent days, in fact, the CEO of Twitter has come out and talked about how that organisation accepts that it has a serious problem to deal with and that it has a responsibility for criminal and bullying content that appears on its site. So, I think we are starting to move towards being clear about what those obligations are, and the bill begins that discussion here. This bill requires a certain set of minimum standards, and the service provider's terms and conditions of use need to reflect that. It requires social media sites to have a complaints scheme—very basic, but very important—and also a dedicated contact person. Those who have tried to deal with some of these problems in the past will know that it is sometimes hard to find a person to talk to when you need to discuss these sorts of things.
These are important steps forward in what is a very difficult issue. I do need to point out, of course, that it does not solve this problem. There are a lot of things about online bullying that will not be prevented by this bill. One of the critical things, of course, is that social media and online bullying are instantaneous. What we are doing here is setting up a commissioner; there will have to be a process of review to look at content. This will have to go back to the social media sites, and there will be some discussion, presumably, there. To the extent that young people are still going to be humiliated by things that happen online, this is not going to stop that conduct—although I accept, of course, that there are additional consequences that are being put in place, and that is a very good thing.
In closing, one of the things we do need to think about and work on in this House is trying to help build resilience in young people—and indeed in adults—who use the internet. The internet is a part of life for us now, and it will just continue to be more and more integrated with the day-to-day activities of living as a human being and a person living in Australia. So I would just say that we can put laws and regulations in place all we want, and we should always take action on an issue that is as important as this one if we can. But I would note that something we all need to be doing is thinking about how we can ensure that young people have the skills they need to cope with what is really a very challenging and very difficult time to be a young person facing problems that those of us in this chamber never had to deal with as young people. So, I commend this bill to the House and thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the chance to make a contribution.
I commend the previous speaker from across the political divide, the member for Hotham. She is absolutely right when she says that there is no silver bullet to deal with the pervasive impacts of online bullying, or bullying in general, among young people.
The bills we are debating before the House here today are a very significant step in the right direction. The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014 follows a significant amount of good work that I am very proud to have been part of. Such was the coalition's resolve on protecting young people from an increasingly evident threat of predatory, bullying and other harmful cyber behaviours that in January 2012 we formed an Online Safety Working Group, of which I became the Queensland representative. Over the ensuing 18 months, our engagement, which included many forums with parents, with children, with teachers and with community leaders in capital cities and regions across the country, informed a very strong policy platform that we took to the 2013 federal election as a commitment.
In January 2014, after the election, a public discussion paper was released to consider aspects of the Enhancing Online Safety for Children policy, with more than 80 submissions received. The suite of measures before the House reflects this conversation we had with the Australian people, as well as extensive and targeted stakeholder consultations with industry groups; large social media sites, including Facebook, Google and Twitter; child safety advocates; and law enforcement officials. In essence, this bill seeks to establish a children's e-safety commissioner, establish a two-tiered scheme for the rapid removal of cyberbullying material from large social media services, and, finally, implement an end-user notice regime under with the commissioner will have the power to issue notices to any person who has posted cyberbullying material aimed at an Australian child.
Traditionally, bullying would stop at the school gate. Today, unfortunately, that is often where it just begins. It is a 24/7 invasive action, with anonymity for those who inflict this pervasive behaviour on Australian children. Put simply, social media has made bullying easier to perpetrate, and unfortunately you end up having more of it. Our Online Safety Working Group frequently heard disturbing stories, particularly from school students and sometimes their parents. We were told of how individuals had used social media networks to coordinate assaults on other children. We discussed how, if a child was bullied in the schoolyard, two or three people would see it, but if you were bullied on Facebook, thousands of people would see it; you had a sort of viral humiliation.
In today's digital world, fuelled by smartphones, tablets and computers, 90 per cent of high school students are on Facebook. We heard how one 12-year-old girl would go to sleep with her phone under her pillow and get abusive Facebook and text messages at 2 am or 3 am. Quite aside from relentlessness of that sort of bullying, there is a clinical term for the habit she had developed: FOMO, or fear of missing out. Thousands of children are reporting disturbed sleeping patterns and compromised functionality in their daily lives because of a refusal to give their computers and phones—and their minds and their bodies—a break. The fear is that if all your friends are participating in something on Facebook and you do not see that, then you are missing out on the social interaction and may even lose touch with your entire circle of friends. It becomes an addiction that creates constant anxiety, stress and discomfort. It makes sufferers less likely to cope with the challenges of life. It makes them less likely to reach out and be a confident, well-rounded and happy individual.
So we owe it to the current and future generations to ensure that the Australian cybersphere is safer and healthier. This is not about vilifying or demonising social media and all the positive benefits that it brings to our society. It is about equipping our young people to deal with the challenges that they may face online and increasing their ability to safeguard themselves.
The Children's e-Safety Commissioner will head an independent statutory body within the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The commissioner will assume national leadership in online safety for young people, and central to that role will be the administering of a complaints system against cyberbullying. The bill sets out a common-sense, two-step scheme for the rapid removal from social media services of cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child.
Social media services participating under tier 1 will do so cooperatively. Following investigations of a complaint, the commissioner may request that the tier 1 social media service remove the cyberbullying material, but there is no legal obligation to comply. However, the commissioner will have the power to revoke tier 1 status if the social media service provider repeatedly fails to remove cyberbullying material after repeated requests over 12 months and may make a recommendation to the minister that the service be declared a tier 2 social media service. A service may also be declared tier 2 at its own request.
Those declared to be tier 2 social media services will be subject to legally-binding notices or face the risk of civil penalties for noncompliance. The commissioner will maintain registers of tier 1 and tier 2 social media services. The commissioner will also be able to publish statements about social media services that fail to comply with the basic online safety requirements, fail to comply in the removal of cyberbullying material or fail to comply with a social media service notice.
The working group in which I participated found another major issue to be the lack of a coordinated approach, not only across state jurisdictions but across schools and community groups. Instituting the Children's e-Safety Commissioner will help fix this. One of its other functions will be as a central agency responsible for managing the upskilling of students, teachers, parents and carers in strategies to meet cyberbullying, online predatory behaviour and the dangers of age-inappropriate content.
Importantly, the commissioner will also carry the power to issue an end-user notice to a person who posts cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child. An end-user notice could require the person to take all reasonable steps to ensure the removal of the material, refrain from posting further material targeted at the child or apologise to the child for posting the material in the first place. The commissioner may proceed to the Federal Circuit Court to seek an injunction against an end user who fails to comply with an end-user notice.
A theme that emerged from my discussions nationwide with teachers and from feedback from my local community was an underestimation of hazardous online behaviour. Part of the insidious nature of online bullying is that it is so secretive. Parents and teachers are often unaware of online bullying—or at least unaware of the extent to which it is occurring. It is clear we need to be break through this cloak of secrecy, and this bill will go a long way to doing that by lifting a lid on the issues and moving to address potential dangers while also, via the Children's e-Safety Commissioner, conducting, evaluating and accrediting schools and community awareness programs.
In relation to concerns that have been raised about the propriety of a rapid removal scheme, may I offer a few salient points. Freedom of speech has an intrinsic value, which is not under siege here. Protecting children against harm is our priority, and any perceived threat to freedom of speech is mitigated in two ways. First, these measures will apply only to communications directed at children; they have no impact on freedom of speech between adults. Second, the scheme applies specifically to cyberbullying—that is, content targeted at, and harmful to, an Australian child. It is not a general content regulation scheme, nor will rapid removal ambush large social media sites and unfairly disrupt their business processes, because a clear principle is that in the first instance, before a complaint can be received and considered by the Children's e-Safety Commissioner, the complainant must have reported the cyberbullying material to the social media site under its already established protocols.
The government acknowledges that many large social media sites have significantly improved their complaints-handling arrangements for removal of cyberbullying material. If a site receives a complaint and acts on it promptly there will be no need for the complaint to go to the Children's e-Safety Commissioner, and the scheme will have no impact at all on the operation of the social media provider. Only if the site does not comply or does not respond will the Children's e-Safety Commissioner get involved.
The rise of social media has led to an explosion of connectivity between people which is difficult for us to grasp as a society. These interactions have brought joy, humour and enlightenment. They have encouraged and helped bind relationships. But, with all its virtues, we cannot afford to be blind to the vulnerabilities implicit in cybercommunication. We have a duty to, as best we can, protect our children from the oftentimes devastating consequences of online bullying and other cyberharms. For that reason, I commend these bills to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Earlier this year I visited the National September 11 Memorial and Museum in Manhattan. The Americans can be proud, and in fact the world can be proud, that they have created there a noble tribute to those who lost their lives in those terrible events of September 11. It is a most powerful tribute. In many cases the most powerful elements of that tribute are very personal: from a watch or a wedding ring right through to ticket stubs—the mementos of people who had gone to work that day expecting to go home at the end of the day and who were felled in the most cruel circumstances. There were harrowing images, as well, of metal hurtling into metal and silhouettes launching themselves from buildings to a cruel end. I visited there in the aftermath of the terrible events of Martin Place.
These separate events—September 11, December 15—may prompt the question of what was less cruel. Was it more humane to confront the sudden loss experienced on September 11 as opposed to the torture inflicted through the passage of time on those held captive in Martin Place on 15 December in an event that cost the lives of two people: a mother, Katrina Dawson; and a son, Tori Johnson? The truth is both situations were marked by their intense cruelty, and both are condemned with equal vigour by us all. Both prompt us to attend to a vital civic purpose.
Much has been interpreted into the actions of the person who carried out the end crime of 15 December. I cannot enter into the mind—and nor do I seek to—of someone who is prepared to abandon their own humanity by denying the continued humanity of others. His actions must be condemned, they are condemned and they will stand condemned through the passage of time.
Some say that the aim of the terrorist is to distort the way we relate to each other through fear and suspicion, and I say that this is simply an ancillary objective. The principal objective is subjugation—that our way of life be subjugated and that it submit to another where we have no say and where someone else has ultimate and complete dictation of the order of things. But this system of governing the affairs of people has confronted and fallen to the purity and power of the greatest of our attributes: the attribute of individual free will. Nazism fell, fascism fell, communism fell and, wherever these systems resort to bloody means of maintaining themselves, they have failed because they cannot resist free will.
I was reminded of this when I saw my friend the member for Kooyong visit the harrowing grounds of Auschwitz 70 years after its liberation and I read the story of how that instance of history affected his family in a very personal way. It affected the lives of six million Jews of the nine million that had lived in Europe at that time. But, ultimately, through all that pain free will prevailed as it had to, as it should and as it will in the face of terrorism whether it occur on our shores or whether it occur elsewhere.
My friend the member for Kooyong will know it is not often that I quote Winston Churchill! But there can be no truer words expressed than when Churchill said:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
We may have our criticisms of the way we run ourselves, but we are all keen to preserve and enhance our way of life. We are also asking of our fellow citizens—and I make this important point, reflect on it and recognise its weight—to undertake a significant test: we are asking them to defy a natural human reaction in the wake of 15 December. It is a reaction guided by fear and provoked by the events of Martin Place. We cannot deny the anger that existed, because it would be like denying our own humanity.
In a day and age where faith is subjected to questioning—and in a modern, vibrant democracy it should be questioned and it should stay that way and be respected—I think faith does have some answers and can guide us in a very positive way. Despite differing faiths, we share this in common, be it your faith or mine: the one thing we share in common about faith is that it always urges us to be better than what we are. In fact, it says to us all that we should not succumb to the easy, indolent reaction of emotion, that we should be better than who we are. We should avoid the rush to hate, the retreat to defensiveness, the withdrawal from others and the false comfort that comes from an aggressive counter. We are being tested, and the question is: will we succumb?
In actual fact, that test is being played out as I speak in another part of the world where a few days ago, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, three young Muslims lost their lives. Some are urging us, rightly, not to rush to judgement, but the three young lives of these Muslim Americans who were killed execution style are prompting an outpouring of reaction and also prompting further thought. It was further thought that was carried in The Independent this week by Sabbiyah Pervez, who wrote in response some words that I think should guide and that go to the heart of the test that I mentioned a few moments ago. She said:
We have been collectively blamed—
referring to Muslim Americans—
scapegoated and attacked for not doing enough. In doing so we have lost sight of the simple fact that—
and I, importantly, reflect on this—
hate begets hate. The more you paint a community as foreign, as a threat, as outsiders, you risk dehumanising them. And this has happened to such an extent that when they are murdered, there is no desire to give them the same sort of attention we would otherwise give all victims of terror.
Very important words. We are being tested, but I say that, in my heart, the response I felt when I saw the way Sydney responded shows we have responded rightly to that test. Sydneysiders showed the breadth and the depth of their inner strength in responding to this act of terror, and I pay my respects to those families but also honour Sydneysiders for the outpouring that we witnessed straight after that.
In fact, I was honoured to be among that outpouring, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition and his wife, Chloe, for allowing me to attend on that day. On that day there was a moment where I have to say it seemed like grief would crush the chest as I looked at that blanket of flowers. I felt the pain and hurt that accompanied those bouquets as they were laid on the concrete of Martin Place. But then a surge of admiration overtook that and replaced that void, because I recognised what we were witnessing and what people were doing there. They were coming together and saying, 'We will be better. We will not allow terror to dictate the way we live our lives, and we will unite for something that is uniquely better.' It was a symbol of collectivism and unity that was truly special. As an individual MP, and for colleagues across party lines, we basically want to preserve and enhance the gift we have right here.
In closing, I want to extend on behalf of the more than 100,000 residents of Chifley the deepest condolences on the loss that was experienced by the Dawson and Johnson families, and the strongest expression of love and support to those who are forced to endure the unimaginable and the completely unacceptable. I also express, as my colleagues in this place have, an admiration for the New South Wales Police and other security agencies who worked in very trying circumstances on that day.
Out of this, in reflecting Churchill's words, let us rededicate ourselves to join together regardless of politics to perfectly defend the imperfect and to preserve and enhance what we have, because it is truly unique and it is something that at its heart, with free will, is worth defending.
I wish to be associated with the motion proposed by the Prime Minister and supported by the Leader of the Opposition. I commend my colleague the member for Chifley for his remarks. I also send my personal condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Katrina Dawson. Katrina was a mother of three, a wife, a daughter, a sister, a friend. She was a member of my own profession, the law. She was attending, innocently, a cafe in Sydney known to me. I also send my condolences to Tori Johnson, remembered as a son and a loving partner and friend to all of those who knew him. They are the personal tragedies. For my own part these horrendous acts of terror which unfolded in the centre of the city that I love moved me enormously. As we watched the events unfold all of us sought a peaceful resolution and that the victims would remain unharmed. We saw images of our great Sydney beamed around the world. It was terror on our shores as we had never seen before. How we handled it was very significant.
I am very proud of Australia. We draw together people from around the world. We have a higher proportion of population overseas born than all but two other countries. We show that people of different faiths, different races, different religions, can live together side by side. What I was particularly proud of on that day was that we did not allow our unity to be destroyed by the act of one man. It is very important, whether he was colluding with others, to understand that it does not change the essential character of Australia, which I think is an example to the rest of the world, and which I believe very strongly.
Martin Place is a very special centre to us all. My wife was in the cafe in question, the Lindt Cafe, 24 hours before this tragedy. We were going to church at St James in King Street. I was parking the car, I might say, at the St Mary's Cathedral car park. Nevertheless I took the car and she went to the cafe and bought the cappuccino that I like and the light latte that she likes—a mere 24 hours before this tragedy. None of us thought that something like this would happen.
I often walk through our great city, and I saw the flowers that were laid by so many. For me, the way in which my neighbours, my friends, the people I knew, responded so generously and wanted to have their condolences reflected through flowers that were laid was something unique and very special. I say all that because I am very proud of my city, of what we are and of what we have been able to achieve. We all relate to those who were tragically wounded by these events.
I have spoken for half my time and I want to spend a few moments reflecting on what we should learn. Our unity was important. The Leader of the Opposition noted the people of Sydney who invited others of different faiths to ride with them to demonstrate our unity. But, if we do not learn the lesson of what terrorism is about, while we might handle it, we will not prevent it.
I am meant to be at another meeting at the moment—a meeting of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Some of the measures that we have had to look at are for how we secure our cities and protect our people. I said only a week or so ago in one of these discussions in another debate we are having about capital punishment that I have a strong commitment to the right to life. I think we have a responsibility to protect people's lives as parliamentarians. Sometimes that means that other rights might have to take second place. I hear some people arguing, in relation to laws that we might have to look at that could help us deal with these situations, that there might be a greater right to privacy to prevent agencies being able to find out some of these things that might be planned and plotted. I tell you: I give privacy second place to the right to life.
I think we have to look very closely, as the inquiries go forward, at the lessons to be learnt. I read that metadata may have been of some value in the inquiries that were being undertaken in relation to this event. If that be the case, I think it is important that we all know and take on board that lesson. I do not want to see an event like this take place in any of our cities again, and I hope that every effort will be taken to learn the lessons and to look quietly—through the coroner's process and through the secretary's inquiry—at the way in which we might have been able to find out in advance what was planned. We can do that. We have seen other events planned in our cities by groups from time to time and, when we have been able to get earlier notice and to understand, I suspect many lives have been saved.
There are two parts to this resolution: the lessons learned have to be before us all, but we should not forget the tragedy that has befallen the Dawson and Johnson families—their suffering. I hope their suffering is not in vain.
As I have said before in this House, in the midst of the argy-bargy there are moments in which we come together on the common floor of this parliament to express deep sympathies to those that have been affected by particular events. Today, of course, we all stand to speak to the loss of both life and for many—for some time to come, I suspect—hope, as they were caught up in the Martin Place siege.
What tremendous contributions we have just heard in this place over the last few moments, let alone in the hours that were dedicated to this debate yesterday. I pay tribute to the contribution of Ed a moment ago—I will use that name; I know, but I am going to say 'Ed' in this particular case—and, of course, to the Father of the House, who stood to his feet. He is father for many reasons, but to hear his contribution was very special also.
I love getting out of this place, because this is a world of its own in here, and it is lovely to be home. I cannot wait to go home after tonight. I am sure we are all the same, because that is where our friends, families and constituents are, that is where our life is, and that is where the world happens for us. It was not that long ago—just on 15 December—that, finally getting back into my electorate, I was thoroughly enjoying it. I had had a coffee, ironically, and had just headed up the street to do a street walk, as good members of parliament do, dropping into some of the local businesses—'How's life?' and so on and so forth. It was a beautiful morning. People were happy. It was a great day.
My phone rang. It was my 20-year-old daughter, who does not live in the electorate but who rang and said: 'Dad, are you listening to the radio? Are you watching TV?' I said: 'No, I'm out on the streets, I've got a coffee and I'm walking. What's going on?' She, with great despair, told me of the events unfolding in the centre of the great city of Sydney. Whilst it was early and it was speculation, there was something in my gut that told me I did not need to speculate. There was a sinking feeling in my heart that that event that all of us had hoped and prayed would never occur in our backyard, as we watched events unfold across the world over the last few years, had in fact turned up and arrived on our doorstep.
This great country, isolated from so much and pure in so many senses—not all, but in many senses—had had a sense of being immune. We think we are immune, and we watch on our televisions and see the impact on the lives of many in other places of the world, never thinking for one moment that we would be faced with such an event. We never think it could happen to us. It is like that in life, isn't it? We do not think it will ever happen to us, and when it does our whole world is changed and turned upside down. Whoever thought that the two words 'lone wolf' would mean anything other than a potential character in a children's storybook? But over the last little while they have taken on a whole meaning of their own, haven't they. In a completely different way from how we felt or how we strategically and defensively planned after the events of September 11, when all our attention was on whether a plane could do damage in our cities and so on and so forth, we now, as a global community, have to face this incredible challenge of dealing with people with radical views that are simply based in an evil intent—all on their own—to make a statement to the world. How do you defend yourself against that?
A moment ago the Father of the House talked about the benefits of the intelligence that we gather, which is true. The way we pass laws in this place very much assists us in being better at heading off potential attacks on our livelihoods, as we saw in only the last few days. We can do all that we can, and we are; and there is more to be done, more to be said and, no doubt, more laws to be passed. We will do our very, very best. But the reality we have to face is that it is really difficult. When someone has evil in their heart and their intentions are to make a statement to the world, based on flawed fundamentalist views, it is really difficult to stop. Today I can only thank God that, in the midst of the great loss of the Martin Place siege and the devastation for the families that no longer live and breathe next to their loved ones, it was not worse. That is of little consolation to those who have lost loved ones.
December 15 was the day that terrorism very much reared its ugly head on our magnificent soil with a brutality, albeit displayed by one man, that we had not seen prior. On behalf of the electorate of Braddon, which I have the privilege to represent, I want to thank the police services of New South Wales and all the other first responders for the way in which they responded to this unexpected barbaric act, and to send our thoughts and prayers to the victims of the siege and their families. Not only were some lives lost, but many were wounded both in body and in spirit. It was moving for me, after the Prime Minister had spoken and moved this motion the other day, to move out into the foyer here and see the families who were in the gallery to listen to the words conveyed by the parliament. I saw the deep anguish, loss and heartbreak of many of these people exposed to me when the elevator doors opened and they made their way down to the ground floor lobby.
Braddon might be a fair distance from Sydney but, as Australians on the little island of Tasmania, we were hoping and praying for an outcome that did not result in any loss of life. That was not to be the case. Sadly, the siege did not end as well as we were all hoping and praying. My prayers now go out to the family, friends and colleagues of Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson. Tori Johnson was obviously a tremendous fellow—loved by all and respected by his workmates. The loss of his life is tragic. Katrina Dawson was obviously a great wife, mother, friend and colleague. The fact that innocent people got caught up in an act of hate, and the impact of those 16 hours, will be felt throughout the victims' and their families' entire lives.
There are inquiries underway; it is best that we stay away from that today and just hope that whatever we find will be of use in the future. The person who carried out this attack, and those in Australia who support his actions, have no place in this country. This act of brutality against innocent individuals was an attack of brutality on our nation. The way we respond to this act of brutality to ensure it does not happen again will, no doubt, be the subject of much debate; but we must love our brothers and sisters, we must resist the temptation for evil and we must commit our lives to peace. As I finish, the apostle, Paul, wrote these great words:
If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
Of all the speeches that I have given in this place, this is one of the most difficult. I commend all those who have spoken to this point, and I commend the unity that we share in the truly important things. To witness the revolting blight of terrorism make its way to the centre of our nation's biggest city was something we all hoped and prayed would never happen. To have ordinary people—not law enforcement officers or soldiers in some foreign conflict, but real, everyday Australians—targeted so randomly by such barbarism is not something we equate with the life we hold so sacred in this great, free and easygoing country where our greatest conflicts are resolved on sports fields, in pools and on courts. To lose those two beautiful, innocent souls—Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson—who were just enjoying another day, one as a cafe manager and the other as a customer, is truly confronting.
Any parent will know the feeling of absolute revulsion at the thought of those forced to bury their child. The thoughts, prayers and wishes of everyone in this place go out to those families. But we also cannot forget the other victims. We may have been cheering at our televisions as we saw the footage of hostages escaping and running to freedom, but these are victims too, who will be scarred for life from this horrible ordeal.
An old friend of mine was one of those victims. John O'Brien is quite a legend in the Australian tennis community. He remains one of our best players in the world in the over-80 division. I caught up with John earlier this week when he came to Canberra to witness the Prime Minister move this motion. John was the man in the blue jacket who ran for his life. When I caught up with him this week in Canberra, I pointed out that he was again wearing that blue jacket. He confided in me that this was his only jacket. John's relief after his flight to freedom to the safe arms of those charged with that great responsibility was immediately consumed by his concern for those still being held. This then was replaced with sorrow that will endure for the fate of Katrina and Tori. This gentleman, incapable of harm or unfairness, a product of the best that sport can produce—not trophies, but the disposition of a personal integrity—has now, through this tragic event, been enhanced with even a greater level of compassion.
Like people across Sydney and the nation, the people of Bennelong poured their hearts out following this horrific terrorist act. This was exemplified by the thousands of floral arrangements left in Martin Place. Just as we had put our bats a few weeks earlier for Philip Hughes, this was our Australian way of standing united in the face of a threat that is incompatible with our values, our way of life. Whether it is a lone wolf, a disenchanted youth or just an evil madman, these people deserve not to be named nor remembered. He was not a martyr. He was not a hero. He was nothing, and we are not afraid. The event should not have been a source for drama to be covered continuously in prime time and on the front pages of our newspapers, which only served to magnify, to make worse the attempt to terrorise.
And we now stand strong in the face of today's announcement that two men were arrested in Sydney yesterday amid allegations they were about to set off on their own senseless act of terrorism. These unimaginable events serve only to bring our Australian community closer together as we celebrate our values of freedom, equality and the rule of law. We unite in strength, as we know that these values will always prove right and always prove stronger against any fundamentalist threat.
On behalf of the people of Bennelong, I mourn with the rest of the nation at our loss and stand resolute that we will not change. I commend the motion to the House.
It is a deep an onerous task for each of us who is speaking on the Martin Place siege. It was an example of a terrible incident on Australian soil with dramatic human consequences. It was also, at the same time, an example of the finest courage from those hostages who ultimately gave their lives to protect and save others, of courage from the police and of an extraordinary upwelling of community unity in the hours and days which followed this act of barbarity. Let me make a few observations, firstly, in relation to those who were lost; secondly, in relation to the events that followed the siege; and thirdly, in relation to the steps forward.
Australia lost two fine young Australians. Katrina Dawson was a very successful Sydney barrister, a mother of three young children whose life was lost in the siege while protecting another. She showed incredible courage which ultimately may have cost her her life. That is as great a gift as anybody can ever give. Tori Johnson, the manager of the café, was also involved in acts of great heroism. For his family, that is an extraordinary loss. To see a young man cut down is a terrible tragedy. But there is a level of grandeur in the heroism to which people can rise in the most extreme times, which was exemplified by the way in which both Katrina and Tori conducted themselves. They gave of themselves in a way which is beyond imagination and almost beyond words in commendation.
There were three other hostages out of the total of 18 who were taken, which comprised eight staff and 10 customers, that were injured: Marcia Mikhael, who was shot in the leg; 75-year-old Robyn Hope, who was shot in the shoulder; and 52-year-old Louisa Hope, the daughter of Robyn, who was shot in the foot. For each of them, I give them our hope for a rapid recovery as free of emotional trauma as is possible under the circumstances. I know that the New South Wales government is providing all possible support, but, most importantly, their friends and families have rallied in the best possible way.
Following the siege and the barbaric approach from Man Haron Monis, who was the hostage taker, Australians should be proud of their police, proud of their authorities and perhaps most proud of the response of the Sydney community and of the broader Australian community.
In terms of the Sydney community, the upwelling of spontaneous support that turned Martin Place into a centre of memory, a centre of community and a centre of gathering to acknowledge those who were lost, and to have done it in such a gentle and caring way, speaks volumes about the true Australian character. This was Australia at its most compassionate, most generous and most spontaneous. There was no organisation, there was no government edict; it was the community responding as one immediately in the best example of a response to the worst of events.
Similarly, I am one who believes the #illridewithyou response to ensure that the Islamic community was not targeted was a deeply positive thing. It represented, in my view, in my judgement, a breadth and depth of Australian character of which we should be proud. Having said that, I am even more pleased that there was no backlash in any significant, meaningful way whatsoever. It was a defence against a possible action, but I am pleased to say there was, thankfully, no underlying response in Australia, that the nature of Australians was to recognise that this was the act of a deluded and deranged gunman who was responding to a global call for jihad. So those were the events that followed.
But let me put this in the long-term context now. We are, as I said in this House in 2003, in 2004, in 2005, engaged in a generation long struggle against a jihadist, nihilist, violent, extremist sliver. This jihadist, nihilist, violent, extremist sliver seeks to establish a caliphate. It seeks to destroy those of the Islamic faith who do not adhere to their exceptionalism as well as those of all other faiths. It is of course worth noting that the primary target of Daesh, or ISIS, has been those of the Islamic faith who do not abide by a totalitarian abusive rule that is utterly contemptuous of women, that is utterly contemptuous of human rights, that delights in bloodshed, that delights in a mediaeval violence and torture that is simply extraordinary and inhuman and inhumane.
Their goal, along with al-Qaeda, is to seek to establish a foothold in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, in Indonesia to create the basis for a caliphate. We must work with those countries and resist at all opportunities. Their broader goal is to extend this caliphate into all countries. They will fail, but we must not ever resile from the fact that this will be a difficult challenge for using both soft power and hard power. Soft power is the power of ideas and resilience and an absolute commitment that we will not tolerate the acts of violence and intimidation that we see. The hard power is to say that where there are deep threats to our citizens or to citizens abroad we cannot be passive. I am one who believes we do need to take steps. We have seen in the last 48 hours actions to prevent another possible tragedy. I commend the security agencies and the police for their work on that front. At the end of the day, we are engaged in a generation long battle—as I, along with many others, identified in this place a decade ago. That battle has not gone away. The call by Daesh, or ISIS, for lone wolf gunmen or other forms of activity has been heard around the world. Some have tried to take it on. In France we saw the atrocity associated with the Charlie Hebdo magazine. We will resist these acts of extremism wherever they are. We will not tolerate a philosophy that is about human destruction, the glorification of violence, the attempt to destroy the freedom of our society and the attempt to simply take over entire tracts of country, whether it is in Syria or Iraq. At the end of the day, we remember Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson. We acknowledge their extraordinary heroism and courage and we give whatever comfort we can at this distance to their families.
I would like to associate myself with many of the wonderful speeches from both sides of the chamber made during this motion. It has been a parliament at its finest.
About 12 months ago I was in Martin Place on a Sunday. There was a rally for the Coptic community of Sydney. Their rally was against the violence and terrorism that their people were facing in Egypt. When that rally was completed on that Sunday, I went looking for a cup of coffee in Martin Place. One of the few places that was open was the Lindt cafe in Martin Place. I remember sitting down and having a coffee on that Sunday, reflecting on the demonstration and the speeches that were being made and how lucky we were in Australia that we had been immune to the violence and terrorism of other nations. And when I heard about the events that were going on in Martin Place, I could recall myself being back in that cafe about 12 months earlier. I could visualise the doors, the wall where the chocolates were lined up, the counter in the far back right-hand corner and the chairs where I had sat, but I could not visualise the terror that those being held hostage must have been going through.
By coincidence, about one month before I pasted a link on my Facebook page to the Lindt chocolate's Christmas commercial from 2012 titled 'A Christmas of love'. For those who have not seen it, it is set to the tune of Silent Night and shows the Lindt bear and a young girl. It is truly one of the greatest pieces of advertising I have ever seen. That is why I posted it on my Facebook page before the siege. You could not get a greater contrast than between the Lindt commercial called 'A Christmas of love' and those unspeakable evil events. You could not get a greater contrast with anything or anywhere.
Many other speakers have reflected on the I'll Ride with You Campaign. No doubt that was very well meaning but ultimately my Sydney, my city, proved it was unnecessary. Some people like to portray or think that Sydney is an intolerant city. On the day after the siege Sydney proved it was one of the most tolerant cities in the world. People of all faiths, religions and backgrounds came together with the floral tribute in the city and the many wonderful scenes we saw after.
I would also like to associate myself with the comments of the father of the House in this debate, the member for Berowra. In this time we should also reflect on what lessons can be learnt. The lesson that can be learnt is that when we talk about human rights we must talk about the rights of the community to safety. We should not be afraid to say that in this circumstance our bail laws failed. We should also consider whether we should ban the Daesh or ISIL flag. The libertarian in me has great difficulty in banning a symbol. If we think back to during World War II it would have been quite acceptable to ban the Nazi flag. I think in these times when we have Australian servicemen in battle against Daesh and when we see this group engaging in unspeakable evil, such as the beheading of people and burning of people alive, we could look at making the possession of that flag a criminal offence.
Finally, this parliament sends a message to the grieving family and friends of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson, sends a message to the victims of the siege who will for many years carry the emotional and physical scars of this event and sends a message to the brave police who stormed the cafe. We say that our parliament is with you and our Australian community is with you. We will stand with you.
Debate adjourned.
In coming to this debate on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014 and related bill a lot of people would appreciate—and I suppose I reinforce my commitment to this—the value that a lot of the technology that underpins social media has. It has had a very important part to play in allowing people to express their opinions and views, regardless of the value we attach to those views—we may think they are trivial or not important. Anyone who discounts social media as unimportant should then question why so many of us in this place participate in it. We participate in it because it provides us with a much better way of connecting with people and getting a sense of the mood of people on various issues.
Clearly there is something to be said about not being overtaken by that and something to be said about recognising that in some cases social media can act like an echo chamber, reinforcing pre-existing views amongst people who share those views. So you always have to be very mindful of that. I have often said we should not be awed by the technology itself; we should be more interested in what it does in changing human relationships, making things easier between people and changing processes. That has certainly been the case.
Having said that, there are clearly downsides and we have seen those downsides. Those downsides in part have brought these bills to the House. Those opposite had fixed themselves on basically walking down a particular legislative path that would bring them here. When we on our side of politics were in government we set in place a number of mechanisms to help deal with cyberbullying. In fact we had, as has been indicated by other speakers, introduced and maintained joint committees within this parliament that looked to support the efforts of others to address the scourge of bullying and to address the downsides that exist when the negative elements of social media go unchecked.
Both sides of parliament are very cognisant of the impact that this has and the psychological toll that it has particularly on younger minds and want to act on it, and this has manifested itself in a number of ways. This primary bill will establish a children's e-safety commissioner and it sets out a range of functions and powers which relate to a defined prohibition against cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child. On the face of it, it is a very specific mechanism and a very specific pathway to deal with a very specific problem. A targeted Australian child, or their representative, can complain to the commissioner that they are or have been the subject of cyberbullying material and the commissioner may investigate such complaints. The bill sets out an expectation of the parliament that each social media service will comply with a set of what are known as basic online safety requirements, which includes minimum standards in a service provider's terms and conditions of use, that there is a complaints system in place and that there is a dedicated contact person.
The bill also seeks to establish two tiers of social media services. For tier 1 social media services, the provider of a social media service can apply to the commissioner to be declared that way. The advantage of this declaration is, in many respects, reputational. Social media service providers within this tier can be requested by the commissioner to remove materials that have been the subject of a complaint as cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child. In contrast, tier 2 media service providers can be issued with a social media service notice by the commissioner which requires the removal of such material. The commissioner has the power to issue notices to end users who post cyberbullying material, which can include a requirement for them to remove the material, and the remedy for noncompliance would be injunctive relief. That, in a sense, gives you an idea of the breadth of this proposed legislation and its intention.
The member for Greenway and shadow minister has outlined that to get to this point has taken a considerable period of time. The government had an intention as to when it wanted to bring this in. That intention has not necessarily been met, partly for the reasons that we anticipated: that this is a vexed area that does not lend itself to easy solutions and you cannot necessarily, with the flourish of a pen, determine legislation that will be able to deal with this in a way that you think is productive. It has taken a bit of time to get here.
There are probably a lot of people—and I have seen some of the commentary on social media—who are concerned about the way in which this is being managed, particularly people who think that the internet should be allowed to be a place where there is a free flow of ideas that can be expressed and shared. I certainly understand that and certainly appreciate it, but I think there is a common-sense proposition. The common sense of the Australian public is, 'Yeah, we get that; we want people to be able to express their ideas on social media, but you have got to be able to draw a line somewhere and you have got to be able to draw a line when it affects young minds'—and there is an effect. You need only look, as I have, at some of the cases to see what cyberbullying does. And the rate at which it is occurring is quite phenomenal. According to one article from news.com.au from a few years ago, January 2012, Australia back then rated No. 1 in the world for bullying on social networks like Facebook. That is a pretty serious statistic. While we ranked fifth for cyberbullying overall, nine out of 10 parents said when the harassment occurred it was on these types of sites. So it is pretty serious. There are also a number of concerns from other jurisdictions. For example, in the UK there are concerns about the rate at which that is happening and concerns that there is not enough being done.
In the short time I have before we go onto other items on the agenda for today, I want make the point that, when you look at the stats and see how often this occurs and you recognise how worried parents are about this, you wonder whether or not the social media services themselves would be responsive enough to deal with it. I have to say, as much as I am supportive of them, they do not have a good track record in this regard. Social media services can do a lot more and have often been urged to do a lot more and have often been found wanting to achieve this. While I might be supportive of them in many instances, I am concerned that they fail to be responsive. It is not just me saying it; it is also the social media services themselves. For instance, the CEO of Twitter acknowledged that they do a pretty substandard job—I am not going to use the specific term that he has used—at dealing with bullying and trolling. And we have seen some devastating impacts of that.
Regardless of our differences of approach and much as we might have differing views on this issue, I think both sides of politics are pretty united in that we would much rather have the social media services deal with these problems themselves than have legislation imposed upon them. We would much rather the social media services do what they have done. They have emerged by themselves without any regard or need for government and we would much rather that. In acknowledging the way that they blossom, the way that they grew, the way that they took hold and the way that they got support, we would much rather that that organic process continued and that those services also respond in an adequate and timely way to what the public is expecting. When Australia is ranking in the way that it does on online bullying and when you see the concern that exists for parents—a lot of whom do not know the extent to which bullying is occurring and impacting on their children—you would think that that would prompt the social media services, Facebook, Twitter and the like, to act and act quickly. But they have not. They have failed to act, and they have set up hurdles in the process.
So while we may think that there are aspects of what the government is proposing that are inelegant, it is a fact that both sides of politics recognise this is an issue and that something is going to have to be done. Again, we would rather that those services do this of themselves. We would rather that they not have to have legislation being debated on the floor like it is here. But it is clear that, through their inability to do so, legislators are having to act. We are seeing this in other jurisdictions. In other parts of the world they are saying, 'We respect the way the internet has opened things up but you have to take control of these things and, if you don't, we will act.'
I think that this legislation is a reflection of a failure by services to act and, as a result of that, we are having to do this. Having said that, there are some concerns about the legislation which I would probably come back to at a later point.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Earlier this week we had the extraordinary spectacle of the Prime Minister claiming that 'good government starts today'. What an acknowledgement of just how bad this government has been so far. He is certainly right about that.
Right around Australia families are suffering because of this government and this Prime Minister. As a result of last year's budget some families on very ordinary incomes of around $65,000 a year face cuts of up to $6,000 each and every year. That is 10 per cent of a family's income. Now the Prime Minister says he wants to make families 'front and centre' of the government's agenda for 2015. Like most things with this Prime Minister, there is a huge difference between what he says and what he actually does. He says he wants to help families with the cost of raising children but he cuts $5.5 billion from family payments.
The government have abolished the schoolkids bonus. The Prime Minister says he wants to help families with the cost of child care but he has cut more than $1 billion from child care. If the Prime Minister is serious about helping Australian families, the first thing he needs to do is drop these cuts immediately and stop deceiving Australian families.
Seventy-five per cent of the Australian economy resides in the services sector—health, education, aged care, tourism, legal services and the like. Yet only 15 per cent of our nation's exports come within the service sector. These figures present an enormous opportunity for one of the fastest-growing industries in my home state of Tasmania to become our state's biggest export: tourism. The latest national tourism figures, in the most recent Tasmanian tourism snapshot, show the growth potential of this industry and support the notion that my home state and my electorate of Lyons are set to prosper.
Last year, the number of international arrivals in Australia reached a record high of 6.3 million, with an expenditure—also at an all-time high—of $30.7 billion. A total of nearly 70,000 international visitors holidayed in Tasmania, which was an eight per cent increase on the previous year. The number of nights that international visitors spent in Tasmania increased by two per cent and international visitor expenditure increased by 13 per cent to nearly $300 million.
The free trade agreement with China is opening up opportunities for Chinese people to visit Australia. In 2013, only 100 million Chinese people left China to visit another country. That is expected to increase to 200 million—not in 10 years but by 2020—and Australia's share of that market will increase accordingly, and my state of Tasmania will benefit as a result of that.
I rise today on behalf of the Australian families who are hurting hard as a result of the Abbott government's cuts, including over $1 billion that they have cut from existing childcare programs. It is long past the time for this government to stop talking about childcare solutions and start acting. As opposed to just talking, the only thing that this government have done is to cut and cut some more when it comes to the childcare support that Australian families rely upon.
We have seen over $1 billion cut, including $157 million cut from Family Day Care services, which Family Day Care Australia have said will increase fees by $35 a week for the families that rely upon those services. We have a bill before this parliament right now to cut the means-tested childcare benefit that low- and middle-income families rely upon, and that will leave 500,000 Australian families worse off.
I want to make it very clear that I am always open to engaging with government and to looking for solutions for Australia's childcare system. However, I will continue to tell the government that their $1 billion in cuts must be reversed. If they want anything in terms of bipartisan solutions they should join us in saying that those cuts are wrong and that those cuts will immediately be reversed.
The Australian public understand Labor's failures when it comes to border protection. But what they may not understand is that more than 8,000 children arrived by boat and that in 2013 the number of children in detention peaked at 2,000 at any one time.
I rise today to inform the people in my electorate of Petrie who have approached me with concerns about the number of children in detention that, as of yesterday, there are only 192 children remaining in detention. This is a significant achievement on the part of the coalition government.
Labor's legacy is a shameful one. There were 1,992 asylum seeker children in detention in 2013. Before Labor came to power in 2007, that number was zero. Under Labor more than 50,000 illegal people arrived by boat on more than 800 boats, and about 1,200 people perished at sea.
It is the coalition government that is getting children out of detention through the reintroduction of TPVs. I am very confident that in the not-too-distant future the number will be at zero once again.
What an extraordinary start to the parliamentary term for this year. On Monday we had the Prime Minister declare that 'good government starts today'—from then! I guess that begs the question: what have we had for the last 17 months? Let me tell you what we have had: a government which has been characterised by being unfair, cruel and out of touch—especially for the people in my electorate of Fowler.
My electorate, apart from being very multicultural, is one where families are on average earnings. They have been directly targeted by the unfairness of this government, particularly by their budget—which they still cannot sell. For families with two kids and on a single income of $65,000 a year, it means a $6,000 cut—that is almost 10 per cent—as a consequence of this government and its budget. In my electorate there are 15,500 families who are on family tax benefit B. They have cut the support for children from 16 to age six and have also made unfavourable changes to the indexation.
I am not sure about all of those on the other side, but I know families in my electorate really valued the schoolkids bonus. It meant $410 per primary child and $824 for a high school student. This government has acted to make life more difficult for working-class families—
Government members interjecting—
and you should have thought about that when you put the Prime Minister back in his job!
Order!
I rise today to pay tribute to Professor Max Lu from the University of Queensland for winning the inaugural Australia-China Achievement Award. Professor Lu, who is the Provost and Senior Vice-President of the University of Queensland, won the education award for exemplary leadership in advancing the research and education relationship between Australia and China. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop paid tribute to Professor Lu and noted that the awards give credit to Australian organisations and people who help to build stronger economic, cultural and educational connections between our two countries.
I know that Professor Lu is a strong advocate and campaigner for the University of Queensland and many of their research goals. I am delighted that he has been honoured in this way. He is an international research leader in materials chemistry and nanotechnology and has received a long list of national and international awards, including being named a Queensland Great in 2013.
There are some amazing people coming out of the University of Queensland. In particular, this week I noted that the nanopatch team, headed by Professor Mark Kendall, has managed to attract $40 million in private funding so that they can deliver this unique way of delivering vaccinations to people in remote communities. This is a truly remarkable achievement for that team and for the University of Queensland.
Families and schools in Lalor are doing it tough. Lalor has the second highest number—behind Rankin—of families receiving childcare benefits. That is nearly 7,000 families in my electorate. We have the highest amount of schoolkids bonus recipients in Lalor. The cut to the schoolkids bonus will add up to $17 million out of families' pockets and out of our schools—excursions, camps, uniforms and books—and out of our local economy. These things are under threat because the government that sits opposite is determined to hurt people in electorates like mine. I represent over 47,000 hardworking families—many low-income families—with combined incomes of $65,000 a year. They will lose $6,000 a year under this cruel government and its cruel budget.
The schoolkids bonus is important. And this government, if it is serious about becoming a good government, needs to address this issue immediately. It needs to reach out to the families in Lalor and show them that it cares about Australians. It needs to be the good government it claims to be.
I am pleased to report that the IT sector in Tasmania has recently had some wins on the international scene and is generating much-needed optimism at a time when the economy is struggling after 16 years of Labor and Labor-Green government. Late last year Launceston based company Anderson Morgan announced it had secured a $100 million deal in the United States to roll out wi-fi internet and was looking to break into the Asian market. It meant 10 jobs last year alone. The business harnesses world-first technology to produce 'intelligent' wi-fi that provides free public internet access in shopping malls and other public places.
With the huge increase of smartphone, iPad and tablet use and the many applications requiring internet access, the demand for this sort of technology continues to grow. Anderson Morgan recently installed free wi-fi technology in the Launceston CBD on a controlled basis. People who use the service can connect for an hour and transfer a maximum 500 megabytes of data. Anderson Morgan has also installed this technology in several Tasmanian tourist towns—again, with great success. This is increasingly necessary for travellers who rely on portable devices for email and banking. Anderson Morgan has shown that, with the right product, it does not really matter where you are based. And I congratulate them on this extraordinary success.
Communities are at the heart of rural Australia. And, from my experience on the Australia Day, community pride is alive and well in Indi. Attendance was high at all events, and it was great to see so many people, including visitors to Indi, celebrating our summer and our national day. These events would not have been successful without the various volunteer groups and organisations that made them run so smoothly—and the catering was first rate.
I would like to say thanks today to Springhurst CFA, Captain Frank Harbottle and organiser, Kevin Atteridge, for the wonderful Australia Day community barbeque. Special thanks go to the cooks at the barbeque and all those who did the work in the kitchen. Thanks also go to the Tarrawingee Community Group, Alex McMillan and Max White for their hospitality at the Australia Day barbeque breakfast, and to the local community—the 100-plus people—who turned up to share it with me. Thanks go, too, to the Greta Heritage Group—and the celebration of the opening of that community gathering place—to Joan Ellis, Noeleen Lloyd and Christina Perra; MC, Adrian Younger; and the Greta Community Trust. And can I just talk about this: to Anthony Griffith, John Tanner and Christine Magee, thank you for the guided tour of this very famous, iconic cemetery. For those of you who do not know, Greta is famous because that is where Ned Kelly is currently buried. This community trust looks after that sacred place for all Australians. Thanks volunteers! It was a wonderful way to celebrate Australia Day.
After nine years of local campaigning, the residents of Boothby will finally see real action and real improvements to address traffic congestion on South Road. In the 2014 federal budget, an extra $441 million in funding was allocated to South Australia for upgrades to South Road, taking the total federal contribution to almost $1 billion and allowing the Darlington and 'Torrens to Torrens' upgrades to be constructed simultaneously. These upgrades at Darlington are what I have been fighting for on behalf of our local community. They were first promised by state Labor in 2006. They were promised by federal Labor in 2007 and they never delivered. The upgrades will mean free-flowing traffic from the connection of the Southern Expressway all the way to Daws Road. In addition, the project contains much-needed improvements to the Marion and Sturt Road intersection. Currently preparations for South Road upgrades at Darlington are underway, with soil and utility investigations taking place over the last two months. I am excited to see these upgrades finally starting. Major construction works are scheduled to commence late this year, and the project will create approximately 370 jobs each year.
The Liberal Party used to take delight in lecturing us about family values, about those values of the 1950s that they hold so dear, but they have not been talking family values so much lately, because they have been caught up in their own family feud. Their self-obsession has blinded them to the realities that are confronting Australian families, the people we represent.
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
It is a family feud, and what is striking about it is that, in functioning families, people can talk through their disagreements, but the member for Bass can only correspond with his family members by emails—pretty unhelpful, pretty unconstructive emails.
Mr Whiteley interjecting—
Member for Braddon, you've got a very loud voice.
That leads me to ask myself: what sort of family is it? While they may like the 1950s, it is not like Happy Days. It is more like the Addams family, more like the Griswolds. We saw duelling parliamentary secretaries over the co-payment issue this morning, as just one example. But it should not be about their family; it should be about the families we all represent—the impact of $5.5 billion in cuts to family payments, the impact of cuts to child care effectively shutting down Indigenous early learning centres. So I join my colleague the member for Griffith in asking members opposite to think about Taylor Swift and to 'shake it off', to shake off the policy agenda, not the personality problems, that bedevil this government. It is your policies that matter, and you should be concentrating on real family values: dignity, security and lives that effectively enable people to balance work and life.
On a lighter note, I enjoyed the tradition of Australia Day this year, on 26 January. That tradition may have first begun in the 19th century, but Australia Day has evolved since that time as a day to acknowledge, commemorate and celebrate the first landing, to unify all Australians and to recognise all the people from different cultures, religions or walks of life who have chosen to call Australia home and become citizens. On 26 January I officiated at citizenship ceremonies at both the City of South Perth and the City of Belmont in my electorate of Swan, where I had the pleasure of welcoming 138 new citizens to our great nation. I attended the morning ceremony at the City of South Perth. In attendance was also Her Excellency the Governor of Western Australia, Kerry Sanderson AO, and there was a fly-over organised by the City of South Perth during the official flag-raising ceremony. And, to the member for Scullin, there were plenty of families down there having a great time, enjoying themselves.
As members know, a Western Australian young lady called Drisana Levitzke-Gray won the Young Australian of the Year award. Drisana is the fifth generation in her family to be born deaf, so she has used this personal experience to become an advocate for Australia's deaf community and their human rights. She is an outstanding example of what can be achieved in life, even with the disability that she has. I congratulate her on winning the Young Australian of the Year award.
Here we are, four days into the government's new era of so-called good government, four days which have been characterised by policy confusion, chaos, disunity and a stubborn insistence on sticking with the same failed, unfair policies that defined the first 519 days of bad government led by a shockingly incompetent Prime Minister—a terrible government which attempted to impose a GP tax that will add an extra $5.5 million or more every year to the medical bills of families in my electorate and cut the Medicare rebate for every doctor; a dreadful government which cut the schoolkids bonus for 4,500 families in my electorate that desperately needed it; an awful government which cut $157 million for family day care, drastically forcing up fees of council run family day care services in my electorate to rates almost equivalent to centre based long day care. This is a crying shame. Families in my community cannot afford or endure the brutal cuts this lousy government has imposed. They want good government. They deserve good government. But so far it is impossible to distinguish it from the atrocious government that spent 519 days surprising the community with a string of broken promises and unfair cuts and a callous disinterest in the basic concept of fairness—a government that promised no shocks, no surprises. When will it end?
The Green Army is one of this government's great success stories. It is a success for the environment, a success for the young people that take part in the program and a success for local communities that undertake practical grassroots environmental and conservation activities. This is real action to combat pollution and degradation of local environmental systems, not real action for more bureaucrats in a climate change department.
Before the election, the now Minister for the Environment and I promised one project for Braddon. After the election, I delivered five projects in the first round. These projects included sustainable recreation development of the Dial Range track; urban waterway clean-up at Kings Creek, Latrobe; limiting mountain bike weed dispersal into vulnerable bushland; Pig Island restoration of river foreshore and wetlands; and the Clayton Reserve burrowing crayfish habitat improvement project. The Clayton Reserve burrowing crayfish habitat improvement project is the first of those five projects to be completed. I congratulate all the young people involved in the project. You graduate with unique experience that will put you in a better position now to get gainful employment. You will have a new group of friends, and, most importantly, you have made a very real and tangible improvement to your local environment and community.
Round 3 of the program opens today, and I encourage all local governments and local conservation groups—and any groups—in Braddon to consider Green Army projects for the betterment of their young people and their community.
More than nine months after the Abbott government handed down its unfair budget, it is still hanging over their heads. That is because it is fundamentally flawed. It cuts into our social fabric and Australians are not happy. But it is especially bad for those who can least afford it: low- and middle-income families, single-income families, single parents.
Despite the Prime Minister saying that families would be front and centre of his agenda this year, his budget cuts $5.5 billion from family budgets. A single-income family on $65,000 with two children will lose about $6,000 per year thanks to the Abbott government's budget. The schoolkids bonus has also been cut, which is absolutely outrageous. It leaves more than 6½ thousand families in my electorate $410 a year worse off for every eligible primary school student and $820 a year worse off for every secondary school student.
And, to make it worse, the Prime Minister is imposing a new fuel tax and wants to increase the costs for families when they go to the doctor. I quote here from one of my constituents:
I have been a cancer patient since 1990, I have a rare tumour which requires me to travel to Sydney once a month to consult with Specialist and undergo scans … This costs me approximately $80 per trip, now thanks to the Government which is proposing to increase tax on petrol my costs are again heading upwards.
(Time expired)
Last week I had a meeting with the director of the Immigrant Women's Health Service in Western Sydney, Dr Eman Sharobeem. She raised with me the growing problem of forced child marriages, a most abhorrent practice that robs young girls of their childhoods and imperils their health and lives. This is not something that is occurring in the backblocks of some war torn Middle Eastern country but in parts of my own electorate.
Therefore it was highly distressing to read an example of child marriage in our nation being reported in today's media, where a 12-year-old girl was found to be pregnant and to have miscarried after she had been married to a 27-year-old man in a ceremony conducted by an Islamic cleric last year. The accused man's barrister stated to the court that his client had only arrived in Australia just a few months before meeting the girl and 'he did not know he was doing the wrong thing'.
Our nation is a success because of our immigration program, welcoming people from all parts of the globe to become Australians. But, if we are to continue to accept immigrants from countries where it is traditional custom for an older man to marry a child bride, we must spell out in crystal clear language that this is not just another multicultural practice. It is a violation of human rights and in Australia we consider it a heinous criminal act against children.
We also need to strengthen our laws regarding anyone who engages in aiding or abetting child marriage. A mere $500 fine which was imposed by a court upon one person who performed a child marriage is manifestly inadequate in the extreme.
I remember during the election campaign Tony Abbott saying that his government would start running on day one. On day one they would hit the ground running. And I saw day one come and go. Some 13 days later, after one of the swearing in ceremonies, the Prime Minister finally said, 'Today is day one'—on day 13. I thought, 'Well, they said they would slow things down, but I didn't expect them to govern in dog years.'
But even I did not expect that some 521 days into their term they would finally declare that they were going to be a good government—on day 521!—and families would be at the front and centre of their agenda for 2015. As if families have not already been at the front and centre of this government's attacks. As if they have not already been in the sights of this fighting Prime Minister.
We have seen a budget that will leave a single-income family on $65,000 with two children $6,000 a year worse off. As if that is not being in the sights of this government. As if families have not been in their sights since day 13, which was day one. That is nearly 10 per cent of a family income. We have seen $1 billion ripped from child care. As if that is not being in the sights of this government. We have seen $5.5 billion ripped from family budgets, and now families are going to be in their sights! I would say to families: be afraid. Be very afraid.
It is with deep regret that I advise the House of the passing of Nita Cunningham on the weekend, aged 75 and just short of her 76th birthday. Nita was a local councillor from 1988 until 1991. She was the mayor from 1991 until 1998 and the state Labor member for Bundaberg between 1998 and 2006, including four years as the Minister for Local Government and Planning.
I offer my sincere condolences, of course, to her family on her passing. She was a strong, talented and effective mayor and member of state parliament who is widely respected for her hard work and her passion for the city of Bundaberg and its people.
Nita was a role model for women aspiring to reach leadership positions. Not only did she balance the demanding role of raising a family while successfully operating a business; she did so while she ran the city, while she represented the people Bundaberg in state parliament and even while working as a state government minister.
Nita was still heavily involved in the community in her senior years, showing that experience conquers age. Of course, she achieved it all in a very quiet, dignified manner which is sometimes lacking in today's society. Nita Cunningham will be missed, but her name and her many contributions to the city of Bundaberg will live on.
This week Tony Abbott said that 'good government starts today'. I am sure most Australians said: 'Hang on a minute. Seriously? Does that mean the government is acknowledging that every day before today they have been a bad government? Isn't that why we elected them—to be a good government?' Is the Prime Minister finally acknowledging that his budget is an absolute shocker, that it is a bad budget and that on a good day, as a good government, they are actually going to acknowledge that they have done the wrong thing?
The Prime Minister also said, 'We will not protect the Commonwealth budget at the expense of household budgets. On a day of good government, we are going to do the right thing by Australian households.' Then why is the Prime Minister still presiding over a budget that rips $5.5 billion from family budgets? On what day of good government is this Prime Minister going to back away from cutting household budgets? On what day of good government is this Prime Minister going to back away from cutting $1 billion out of child care?
On this brand new day of good government when is this government going to do something for families and stop increasing the petrol tax? If this government is serious about being a good government, serious about doing the right thing by families, then it will back down on— (Time expired)
It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
The question is that the motion be agreed to. I understand it is the wish of the House that the motion is carried and that the names of all members, including the Speaker, shall be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings in support of the motion. I ask for this to be done, unless any member advises the Clerk of their wish not to be included.
Question agreed to unanimously, Madam Speaker indicating her support for the resolution.
The question is that the motion moved by the honourable the Prime Minister be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Human Rights Commission has detailed serious concerns about the wellbeing of children in detention. Beyond the statement of Senator Brandis last night, how will the government respond to these new disturbing findings?
I really am amazed that the Leader of the Opposition should raise this subject in question time today. At its peak in the middle of 2013, under members opposite when they were in government, there were almost 2,000 children in detention. If members opposite are upset, they should be hanging their heads in shame with their own performance. In the middle of 2013 at the time of the election, there were almost 1,400 children in detention, now there are under 200 children in detention. Under us, there has been a 90 per cent improvement. Why are there only 10 per cent of the numbers in detention under us than there were under Labor? It is because we stopped the boats.
The Leader of the Opposition asked a question of baffling folly, of absolutely incomprehensible folly, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where was the Human Rights Commission when members opposite were in government, when the boats were coming, when the people were drowning and when the children in detention were mounting up and up? Where was the Human Rights Commission? We do know from evidence in the Senate that there were conversations between the Human Rights Commission and ministers in the former government.
It would be a lot easier to respect the Human Rights Commission if it did not engage in what are transparent stitch-ups like the one that was released the other day. I say to the Human Rights Commission: if you are concerned about real human rights, real human decency, real compassion for people, you should be writing congratulatory letters to the former Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, who has stopped the boats, who has saved lives and who has got children out of detention.
I am going to do the Leader of the Opposition this favour: there will not be a royal commission into children in detention because if there was a royal commission into children in detention it would condemn Labor and, frankly, they stand condemned already.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister further update the House on Tuesday's counterterrorism arrests in Sydney? What is the government doing to keep the community safe?
I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. I can say to this parliament and to the Australian people that we have been saved from an imminent terrorist attack inspired by the Islamist death cult which is now stalking so much of the Middle East.
This morning I received a briefing from the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Andrew Colvin, and from the Director-General of ASIO, Duncan Lewis, about these arrests and the attack that these arrests have forestalled. As part of that briefing, I was shown a pre-attack video that had been prepared by the men arrested. Kneeling before the death cult flag with a knife in his hand and a machete before him, one of those arrested said this:
I swear to almighty Allah, we will carry out the first operation for the soldiers of the caliphate in Australia.
He went on to say:
I swear to almighty Allah, blond people, there is no room for blame between you and us. We only are you stabbing the kidneys and striking necks.
I do not think it would be possible to witness uglier fanaticism than this, more monstrous fanaticism and extremism than this, and I regret to say it is now present in our country. I want to stress that we are a decent and tolerant people. We are a compassionate and free society, but we will never allow evil people to exploit our freedom.
Government members: Hear, hear!
I want to thank New South Wales Police, the Australian Federal Police and our security agencies for the work they did to forestall this attack. We need them now more than ever. This is a metastasising threat, because under current conditions under the influence of the Islamist death cult, all you need to be a terrorist is a knife, a flag, a camera-phone and a victim. That is all you need.
We can defeat this threat. We will defeat this threat. We must defeat this threat. And I am confident that this government has the will to do so. We have the will to defeat these evil people. We have the will to protect our way of life.
I can inform the House that the anti-terror legislation recently passed by the parliament was helpful in securing this arrest. There is more legislation on data retention shortly to come before the parliament and it must be passed if our community is to be as safe as it should be in these difficult times.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Today's labour force figures show that there are now 100,000 more Australians out of work than when the Liberal-National government was elected. When will the Prime Minister stop worrying about his own job and start worrying about the jobs of Australians?
I want to give the Leader of the Opposition the benefit of the doubt. I do want to concede that he is genuine when he asks a question like that. But, if members opposite were fair dinkum about protecting employment in this country, why has the Victorian Labor government, with the full support of the Leader of the Opposition, just crushed 7,000 jobs in Victoria by refusing to go ahead with the East West Link.
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence on both sides of the House!
This government is serious about creating jobs. We are serious about creating jobs, and if you want to create jobs you have to go ahead with job-creating infrastructure. Seven thousand jobs would be created by the East West Link.
Opposition members interjecting —
The member for Gorton! The member for Rankin!
They have now been destroyed by the Victorian Labor government with the full support of the Leader of the Opposition. Yes, these are disappointing figures, but 213,000 jobs were created last year. The rate of jobs growth last year was three times the rate achieved in the last year of the former, Labor government. ANZ job ads have now increased in each of the last eight months and are up 13.6 per cent on the level of a year ago.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Wills and the member for Griffith will desist!
The just released Dun and Bradstreet business expectations survey has found that the outlook on employment is the most positive it has been for 10 years. Just yesterday, the Westpac consumer confidence index was released.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Rankin in warned!
It demonstrated an eight per cent increase to bring consumer confidence up to the highest level in 12 months. This is a government which is serious about creating jobs. This is a government which is serious about being open for business. What have we got over there? What have we got over there on the other side of this House?—a Leader of the Opposition whose only policy is to bring back the mining tax, bring back the carbon tax and destroy jobs.
I rise on a point of order: relevance.
The Prime Minister has finished his question.
The Prime Minister has spent 2½ minutes; he has not mentioned 100,000 unemployed.
The member will resume his seat.
The my question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on events in Iraq and how Australia is contributing to international efforts there to combat the Daesh death cult? Can you also reassure my defence families that we will do all that we can to ensure the safe return of their partners?
I thank the member for Herbert for his question and I recognise his deep commitment to the welfare and wellbeing of the defence personnel and families who live in his electorate.
I can confirm that this government will do all it can to keep our defence personnel safe wherever they serve around the world. The brutal and inhumane execution of hostages by Daesh in Iraq and Syria and the terrorist raids in Sydney yesterday demonstrate, yet again, that the international committee must do everything it can to combat Daesh, or ISIL.
Terrorism is a global threat and it demands a global response. I have been briefed on the latest situation in Iraq today by the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Dr Ibrahim Al Jaafari, who is visiting Canberra. It is clear that progress is being made, but there is still some way to go in order to reclaim the territory that Daesh has taken as part of its declaration of a caliphate. More must be done to defeat Daesh, but defeat it we will.
Minister Al Jaafari has confirmed that Daesh's momentum has been halted in recent months. In some places, it has been forced to retreat. Indeed, General Allen, who is the special envoy for the international coalition to combat ISIL, has confirmed that the Mosul Dam has been taken back. Access to the Rabia crossing into Syria, which Daesh relied upon, has been denied to them, and the siege of the town of Amirli, in northern Iraq, has been broken.
Coalition air strikes have taken out many Daesh targets, and this is placing significant pressure on the terrorists. The Australian Air Task Group, with the grateful consent of the Iraqi government, has made a significant contribution to the international coalition's efforts to disrupt and degrade Daesh. Our air strikes are in fact denying Daesh's freedom of movement and preventing them from being able to mass forces and resupply their fighters in the field. Our aircraft, including six FA18 Super Hornets, have flown more than 500 sorties as part of the international coalition. About 200 of our Special Forces are training and assisting Iraqi military forces to take the fight to Daesh on the ground.
I pay tribute to the courage and commitment of our military personnel. In fact, Dr Al Jaafari also spoke in glowing terms of the contribution that Australian personnel are making in Iraq.
Daesh has, with the assistance of foreign terrorist fighters, including from Australia, inflicted pain and suffering on the people of Iraq. The humanitarian cost has been significant: two million people internally displaced in Iraq alone.
Australia has contributed over $22 million in humanitarian assistance, and this is in addition to the $135 million in humanitarian assistance we provided in response to the Syria crisis. The government is committed to making a significant contribution to these international efforts to combat terrorism. We will keep our nations— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Today Australia's unemployment rate reached its highest level since 2002, when the Prime Minister was the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. South Australia's unemployment rate has now reached 7.3 per cent. Prime Minister, when will good government actually start and the Prime Minister deliver on his promise to build the submarines in South Australia?
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence for the answer!
The only government that promised to deliver submarines to South Australia was the former Labor government, and in six years it did nothing.
Opposition members interjecting—
In six years it did nothing! Kevin Rudd, before the 2007 election, could not have been clearer. He said, 'The subs will be built in South Australia without a tender.' That is what he said: 'They will be built in South Australia without a tender.' And then he sat on his hands for six years.
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. This is misleading. This Prime Minister sat for—
The member will resume his seat! There is no point of order.
I know members opposite do not like being reminded of their comprehensive and monumental failure, but we will remind them of the mess and the chaos that they created, every day—every single day. Seven years ago, eight years ago now, nine years ago now, Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister, promised—he absolutely promised categorically—that the subs would be built in South Australia without a tender and then did absolutely nothing for six years.
Members opposite want to know about jobs. Under members opposite, defence jobs in this country declined by 10 per cent. There was a holocaust of jobs in defence industries under members opposite. That is what there was. Jobs, jobs, jobs—I am sorry, and I withdraw, Madam Speaker. There was a decimation.
Mr Burke interjecting—
I have withdrawn already.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business? The Prime Minister has the call.
There was a decimation of jobs in defence industries under members opposite.
What this government will do is ensure that the workers of South Australia have a fair chance to compete for any jobs that are going. That is what they have a right to expect, and that is what they will get under this government.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. I remind the minister of the recent arrest of two men on terrorism charges in Sydney this week. Minister, when did the men arrive in Australia, and what pressures were our security agencies under at the time they arrived?
Honourable members interjecting—
I call the honourable Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and there will be silence for the answer.
I thank the honourable member for his question and his significant interest in relation to national security matters.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton!
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will remove himself under 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
The advice that I have received in relation to these two particular individuals is that one arrived in Australia in 2009 and one arrived in Australia in 2012. On the advice provided to me, one of those arrived on improperly documented air travel, on fraudulent documents, and that matter is being investigated as a matter of urgency. But it is important for all of us to understand the pressure that our security agencies were under at the time.
The fact is that, when John Howard left government in 2007, there were four people in detention, including no children. That is a very important fact for the Australian public to remember, and yet, over the course of the next seven years—
A point of order, Madam Speaker—
Is what?
Madam Speaker, my point of order—
Is?
is on the grounds of low-rent grubbiness. If he wants to walk down this path—
The member for Corio will resume his seat!
Mr Marles interjecting—
Resume his seat!
Mr Marles interjecting—
The member will remove himself under 94(a).
The member for Corio then left the chamber.
I am fully aware of the fact that it is Thursday and many people like an early plane. That could include the member for Corio. And if anyone wants to join him I can make sure that they can get that early plane. I call the honourable the minister.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Just to go through the facts, to explain them to the Australian public: when Labor was elected in 2007, they inherited from the Howard government a situation where four people were in detention, and none of those people were children. That is the first point to make. The second point, which the Labor Party do not like—and we saw the demonstration of that before—is this fact: over the course of the Labor government, having been elected in 2007, 50,000 people arrived on 800 boats. Our intelligence agencies were pushed to the limit and indeed beyond. This is a very, very important fact, because at the same time, Labor ripped out $700 million from our border protection agencies. They hamstrung the agencies with dysfunctional policies and the worst administration that this country had seen since federation. What has happened since the election of the Abbott government—let me tell you this—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a) to get his early plane.
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
over the last 12 months, under this government, we have seen one boat arrive. And yet in 2013, under Labor, there were 302 boats. At the same time, we have been able to put together a package of $630 million announced by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Justice and others, including my predecessor, who did a great job in this portfolio, that is part of this government's counter-terrorism response. It included $150 million for standing up 80 officer counter-terrorism units at airports across the country; $35 million for the outwards Advance Passenger Processing system; $50 million for outward departure gates; and $14 million to expand our global airline liaison officer network, and the work has—(Time expired)
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin will leave under 94(a), and withdraw first.
I withdraw.
The member for Rankin then left the chamber.
My question is to the Prime Minister, and specifically in the context of the answer just given. Can the Prime Minister explain how the terrorist Khaled Sharrouf was allowed to leave Australia despite being on an airport watch list?
This terrorist was able to leave Australia because, regrettably, we were not able to change instantly all the bad systems that Labor had in place. Regrettably, it does take time to change systems.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Prime Minister is pointing something out to me that I cannot hear for the cacophony of noise.
It was just the usual kind of cheap sneering and smearing that we expect from members opposite.
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left!
They are getting rather worked up today, are they not? They are getting worked up, because at heart, when it comes to anything to do with border protection, members opposite have a deep sense of shame. They have a deep sense of shame, because they know they so badly let down our country.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: to be relevant, the Prime Minister needs to refer to a member of the death cult who he let out.
There is no point of order.
The question has been asked by the person who has been by a long shot the most incompetent immigration minister in our country's history. I am afraid the legacy of incompetence cannot be changed overnight.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The member for Lingiari is warned!
That is the truth. The legacy of incompetence that that man left is such that it does take some time to fix but, thanks to the biometric screening processes that this government is putting in place, something like that will never, ever occur again. You can trust the safety of this country with this government. You can trust the borders of this country with this government. We do not just spend money—we have the will. We have the will to stop this problem. Members opposite, in the end, just did not know what they wanted. They could not decide whether they were human rights lawyers or executives in charge of the security of this country. Well, we know what we are. We know that we are charged with the defence and the security of this country, and we will never let the Australian people down.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, before the last election you promised unambiguously $16 million for Cadbury to build critical tourism infrastructure at its Claremont factory in Hobart. There is still no sign of this much-needed economic development funding, and the community is understandably getting anxious. Prime Minister, when exactly will this money be forthcoming?
The money will be forthcoming when the business case, which was only supplied in December last year, has been properly studied and analysed. The member for Denison would expect this government to be careful and responsible with taxpayers' money. This government, unlike members opposite, always will be careful and responsible with taxpayers' money. We have only had the business case for a matter of weeks. We are carefully studying the business case. The Minister for Trade and Investment is looking at the matter now. If the case stacks up, the project will go ahead.
I can reassure the member who asked the question that this government will be a great government for Tasmania. It will be a great government for Tasmania because we have got three absolutely outstanding Tasmanian members of parliament who will ensure that we are a great government for Tasmania. And part of being a great government for Tasmania involves over $1 billion for Tasmanian infrastructure—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton.
including $400 million for the Midland Highway, $120 million for upgrades to Tasmania's freight network and $38 million to extend the runway at Hobart airport—and that alone will create 200 jobs during the construction phase.
I am grateful to the member for Denison for asking this question and I can assure the member for Denison that the interests of Tasmania are safe with this government.
My question is to the Minister for Justice. Will the minister update the House on what action the government is taking to crack down on organise crime and the illegal drugs and firearms trade? What is obstructing our ability to keep Australia safe?
I thank the member for Banks for that important question. The Australian Crime Commission, our national criminal intelligence agency, tells us that the criminal economy in Australia is worth around $15 billion. That is made up of the illicit drugs trade, money laundering and the trafficking of firearm's. The ACC conservatively estimates that there are about 250,000 long arms and 10,000 handguns in the illicit gun market. Police consistently tell us that there is an inextricable link between guns, drugs and organised crime.
Firearms trafficking is a deadly crime and even a small number of firearms coming into Australia is a huge threat to the safety and security of our communities. And that is why we had an election commitment that we would introduce minimum mandatory sentences of five years prison for offenders charged with the smuggling of firearms or the smuggling of firearms parts. On Monday the Labor Party opposed this policy in the Senate and they did so, according to the shadow minister for justice, because:
… the Australian Labor Party's national platform that it is the strongly-held view of my party that mandatory minimum sentencing is often discriminatory in practice … and so we oppose mandatory sentencing…
We oppose mandatory sentencing. That is interesting because I have come across this document:—
No props.
A Secure and Fairer Australia brought to us by Julia Gillard and Labor—remember her?
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Very timely, member for Gorton. The ministers responsible for this document at the time were the then Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, and the then minister for home affairs, Brendan O'Connor. This document goes on to say:
In May 2010 federal Labor introduced tough new people smuggling offences.
This is May 2010 in the midst of the worst people smuggling crisis this country had ever seen. We had 50,000 people arriving here illegally on 800 illegal boats. This document goes on to say:
They include penalties of up to 20 years imprisonment and mandatory minimum terms of up to eight years.
So apparently in the Labor Party's national platform and as part of their DNA, they do not believe in mandatory sentencing yet they are bragging about it in policy documents put before the Australian people in 2010. This would have been put out just before they stabbed Kevin Rudd and put in Julia Gillard and later on of course when they stabbed Julia Gillard to put in Kevin Rudd. They do not know what they believe in, as we have seen. They do not know if they believe in helping us to stop organised crime, in helping us to stop drugs or in helping us to stop guns and they should not have opposed this sensible legislation. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Defence. Given the minister's refusal to confirm whether the Prime Minister has already made a captain's pick on submarines, does he agree with one of his strongest supporters, Senator Sinodinos, who told Sky News yesterday:
It is a matter that needs to be cleared up. When is the government going to come clean on what it has promised Japan on the subject of submarines?
Opposition members interjecting—
I call the honourable the Prime Minister.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
There will be silence for the answer, and that includes the member for Gorton.
It really does come ill from members opposite to engage in this constant denigration of Japan and the Japanese, it really does. What is wrong with defence cooperation with Japan, which has been a friend of and partner of Australia for the last 50 years?
To be relevant, the Prime Minister needs to refer to the election promise he made.
The Prime Minister is being relevant. There is no point of order. Take your seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
There is absolutely no doubt that I have raised the subject of submarine cooperation with the Japanese Prime Minister. It would be irresponsible of me not to raise the subject of defence and submarine cooperation with the Japanese Prime Minister, given that this country risks a serious submarine capability gap because members opposite sat on their hands for six years. This is yet another Labor mess that this government is having to fix up just like we have had to fix up the air warfare destroyer mess, which is two years behind schedule and $300 million dollars over budget. Absolutely, I have raised with the Prime Minister of Japan the subject of submarine cooperation as I should. Because my duty is to ensure that Australia has the best possible submarines for the best possible price when we need them.
I have not just raised this with the Prime Minister of Japan. I have equally raised this with President Hollande of France and I have equally raised this with Chancellor Merkel of Germany. We are exploring submarine cooperation with the countries that have the expertise to give us the submarines that we need. We are doing absolutely what a good government should because what we will never do is put the defence—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton!
of Australia at risk. That is what we will never do. Members opposite put the defence of our country at risk by promising submarines built in Australia. They promised them back in 2007, and for six years they sat on their hands. The Leader of the Opposition was too busy backstabbing two prime ministers to get on with the job of defending our nation.
Madam Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of building a strong and prosperous economy? Particularly, what does this mean for families in my electorate of Lyons and around Australia?
I thank the honourable member for Lyons for his question. He has proved to be an indefatigable advocate for his community in every way, and a great advocate for business and families.
While today's job figures are extraordinary and disappointing, the fact remains that since we came to government we have seen job growth at three times the speed of what it was under Labor in their last year of government. And what does a strong economy mean for everyday Australians? It means more jobs, greater growth and greater opportunity.
In terms of jobs, one of the ways you can help to create more jobs is to lower costs, and that is exactly what we did by getting rid of the carbon tax. Electricity prices came down; gas prices came down. Lowering taxes, whether it be the carbon tax, the mining tax or delivering the abolition of the carbon tax while retaining personal income tax cuts—it all helps to deliver more jobs.
Of course our asset recycling scheme, which is an incentive to get the states moving on infrastructure, helps to create jobs. I am pleased to report to the House that I will be signing the first agreement on behalf of the government early next week. And the first signatory will be a Labor government. I will give you a tip: it is not the South Australian Labor government. So we are getting on with the job of building infrastructure with the biggest infrastructure commitment in Australia's history. No doubt about that. That helps not only to deliver jobs—of course in Victoria they have just torn up 7,000 job contracts on the East West Link—but also other infrastructure we are rolling out is going to create jobs.
Importantly, it is going to help to speed up growth in the economy. The NBN actually being delivered helps to facilitate the growth of business needs, and that is why last year we had the largest number of business start-ups in Australia's history. Ultimately this all means opportunity for everyday Australians. It means we are going to have a more prosperous future. It means we can dream and make those dreams come true. The way to do that is to facilitate that opportunity through new trade agreements—through the Korean trade agreement, through the Japanese trade agreement, through the Chinese trade agreement. We are building new markets and we are supplementing that with a more skilled workforce: a workforce that has a better education system, that is world class and has a system that provides incentives for the lowest income Australians to be able to get a trade. In simple terms: jobs, growth and opportunity—the best way to help families and small business.
Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Defence. Can the minister confirm that his office or his department are in possession of draft talking points, draft media releases or any other draft supporting documents announcing that Australia's new submarines will be built by Japan?
I do not know how many times it has to be said until the opposition understands, but the government has not made a decision on the Future Submarines program. The government has not made a decision on the Future Submarines program. How many times do I have to say it? We have not made a decision.
Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how changes to the coastal shipping regulations will boost Australian jobs and ensure its sustainability into the future?
I thank the honourable member for Braddon for the question—representing the island state of the island country. Shipping is particularly important to Tasmania but shipping is also important to the whole of the nation, and having a competitive shipping industry could make a real difference to the way in which we deliver our freight task in Australia as well as ensuring that we are able to export and import commodities in the most efficient possible way.
We have the fourth largest shipping task in the world because of the bulk commodities we export and the products we bring into this country. But instead of us having a healthy and vibrant shipping industry, we have one that is in steady decline. Labor, when they were last in office, introduced a coastal trading act. They did this because the MUA, the union that is one of their masters, and which has essentially presided over a steady decline in the Australian shipping industry over a very long period of time, insisted that they do it. As a result, Labor promised us that we would end up with more people employed in shipping, we would have more Australian ships and a more efficient industry. Precisely the opposite has happened. Since Labor's legislation was introduced, there has been a 64 per cent decline in the tonnage of Australian flagged ships. In addition to that, the volume of coastal freight carried by ships has reduced by 2½ per cent a year—reduced! At a time when our national freight task is growing enormously, shipping share is in steady decline because of the legislation that Labor introduced.
The cost of shipping around Australia has gone up enormously. Bell Bay Aluminium say that their freight went up 63 per cent in the first year of this program. The reality is that Labor's shipping reform has been a disastrous failure. There is not a single ship registered on the second register that was created under Labor's legislation, and that is because the MUA effectively have a veto over that whole operation.
We need to reform shipping in this country. We want Australian ships to do well, but we also need to ensure that we have got the most efficient shipping task possible. Why is it that it is twice as expensive to take a container from Melbourne to Brisbane as it is from Melbourne to Singapore? Because of the cost structure of this industry we are costing jobs in manufacturing and other Australian industries and we are continuing to lose jobs in shipping.
This government wants to reform the Australian shipping arrangements so that we can get rid of the red tape—the 1,000 or more hours of additional red tape—that Labor imposed through this legislation. That is the kind of thing that can make a difference to make sure that shipping can play its proper role in moving our freight around the country.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister cooperate with the National Audit Office investigation into the allocation of $3 billion to the East West Link, including a $1½ billion advanced payment without any assessed business case? Does the minister regret cutting funding for Infrastructure Australia recommended projects, including the M80, managed motorways and the Melbourne Metro rail, in order to fund the East West, which had a BCR of just 45c for every $1?
Of course my department and the government will cooperate with the Auditor-General's investigations, but I am surprised that the opposition would raise this job-destroying decision of the Victorian Labor government at a time when we are desperately trying to boost our economy through substantial investment in infrastructure and to get those projects moving as quickly as we possibly can to provide jobs for people whose task building some of the new mining infrastructure in our country is coming to a close. We need to provide those jobs and big projects like the East West Link were significant parts of that plan.
Labor is walking away it seems from this major job-creating scheme. Labor is walking away from 7,000 jobs. We want to revolutionise the movement of traffic around the city of Melbourne. They now seek to criticise those who want to get on with the job.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked why he cut funding for projects—
The member will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
I seek to help him by tabling—
The member will resume his seat.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Resume his seat.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Resume his seat!
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Resume his seat!
Through his interjection the shadow minister is inviting me to again refer to our $50 billion infrastructure program—scores of new projects around the nation that create jobs for Australians in every state, jobs that will make a difference to the quality of the infrastructure in our nation and indeed in many instances projects which Labor oppose and would certainly never have funded. The reality is that the East West project was one of those, a project that could have made an enormous difference to Melbourne's traffic flow and of course created 7,000 jobs, which would already be being created now. Labor ought to not seek to draw attention to their disgraceful record in this regard in seeking to destroy the job opportunities of Victorians and the chance to build a stronger economy in that state and across our nation.
I call the member for—
Government members: Moore.
Moore, I beg your pardon. We will have some more from the member for Moore.
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training. How do the government's reforms to higher education help students from disadvantaged backgrounds?
That is a very good question from the member for Moore, who cares, like everyone on this side of the House, about spreading opportunity in higher education to all Australians, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. About 18 per cent of students each year entering university are assessed as being from disadvantaged backgrounds. Many of those are from rural and regional Australia and many of them are first-generation university goers. We obviously want to encourage them into university and into pathways programs because of the transformative nature that education brings to the lives of everyone involved with it.
The government's higher education reform bill comes with a very large dose of social equity. The member for Moore supports that and so does this side of the House. Through two specific mechanisms we will be able to increase the number of disadvantaged students getting free education in Australia. Universities will put one in $5 of their extra revenue into the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme. That will be directed towards disadvantaged students, which means thousands and thousands of students will be able to go to university for free under the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme.
Secondly, the Higher Education Participation Program, which currently exists, will be rephased as part of this second reform bill so that universities that have a high number of rural and regional students, first-generation university goers or students who come from areas where there is a high level of disadvantage will specifically be able to access scholarships under the Higher Education Participation Program. So in a very honest way and a very transparent way we will be able to, through scholarships, genuinely deliver free education for disadvantaged Australians who deserve a fair go and a chance to go to university.
Under the Labor Party's model of free education that they once introduced and then abandoned, effectively there was a redistribution of income from the poorest Australians to the wealthiest Australians, as poor Australians funded the education of those in Australia who could have paid for themselves. It was a socially regressive policy. Under our policy the scholarships mean that we will be able to transparently support disadvantaged students
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will desist.
and give them real, free education because of the massive expansion of scholarships. Under Labor there will be stagnation and a slow decline into mediocrity for our higher education sector. Under the coalition we will set universities free to be their best and give proper value for money to their students. This will massively expand opportunity for students, and that is why this is a socially advantageous policy.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Before the last election the government promised not to means test the childcare rebate. Does the minister stand by this election commitment today or will this be the latest broken promise?
Before I ask the minister to reply: yesterday we had a use of props which was not authorised and today we are having another, and I did not allow it.
Honourable members interjecting—
Yes, I did. I would remind the House—and that includes the Leader of the House—that we will not have props. I now invite the minister to have the call.
As I said to the House earlier this week, we spend $7 billion of taxpayers money seeking to do one very important thing, and that is to help families, particularly families on middle to lower incomes to ensure that they can have those two incomes and get back into work and to support families to be able to support themselves. I have given an invitation to those in the opposition, and specifically to the shadow minister who has asked the question. What I believe is necessary here is for the parties to come together to support a package that families need when it comes to child care. There has been a history of policy in this area where some of it has worked and some of it has not worked.
It is true that, under those opposite, childcare fees went up by over 50 per cent. It is true they lifted the rebate by 30 per cent to 50 per cent, and it did not get any of these women back into work after they had children. The risk is that, if you get this policy wrong, you are inviting young families to get trapped in a welfare net. I say this directly to the opposition: if you want to play politics with this issue you can do that, but you will be letting down families who are depending on us to get this right.
Under the opposition, when they were in government, they introduced new regulations and new rules which put up the price of child care. They locked that up in legislation which will make it very difficult to keep the cost pressures on child care going down. We are looking to deal earnestly and seriously with this issue, and the challenge for the opposition is: are they prepared to come forward with real solutions and engage with the government? If they are not, then what they can be accused of is engaging, as the Leader of the Opposition does constantly, in unfunded empathy—happy to run around and empathise with every problem but never bring forward a solution and never bring forward funding for that solution.
What we see in the Leader of the Opposition is not a test match performer but a big bash slasher—a big bash slasher who is happy to go for the big hit, for the big slash, the big populist effort, but he cannot put it in week in and week out unless he is putting it in to someone else who he used to work for. That is what the Leader of the Opposition does. What we need are politicians in this place who are going to work together to solve this problem like we solved together the issue of the NDIS.
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left.
If those opposite want to politicise child care, you will be disappointing the families and the mothers and fathers of Australia and their children.
Before I give the call to the member for Barton, we will have some silence so we can hear both the question and the answer. And those people who want to go on making a ruckus can be afforded the opportunity for the early plane they clearly want.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the minister update the House on important changes being made to foreign purchases of agricultural land?
I thank the honourable member for his question. It is great hearing from someone from St George. Obviously we both have an association with St George—his in Sydney and mine in western Queensland. It is also great to hear from someone from an urban electorate who has a real concern that we have the proper controls over the application for the purchase of Australian land. We all know that at the very centre, the very essence, of what we are as a nation is the land we stand on—and there is so much that we have to do to make sure that we respect that. We must make sure that there is a real pride in the ownership of that land; we must make sure that there is real dignity in the return people get off that land; and we must make sure that there is a real diligence in the management. It is in diligence of the management which—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon.
has shown that we have listened to the Australian people. The Australian people, whether that is in Sydney, or Melbourne, or Brisbane, want to make sure that there are better controls and better oversight on the purchase of our most precious asset: our land. That is why we listened to the Australian people and when they asked for the changes we gave them the changes—moving it down from $252 million down to $15 million. But there is an alternate policy.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Hunter.
It is good when the Labor Party come up with a policy—and they have an alternate policy. They are not going to move it down; they are going to move it up to $1,000 million. This has not gone over very well. Even in the city, in Sydney, people are congratulating us that we have done what they asked for, that we have taken the steps for proper control. This is at—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Hunter will desist.
complete odds to a policy of the Australian Labor Party, which now stands by their promise of Senator Wong and the shadow minister for agriculture to move the—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Hunter!
limit up to $1 billion. So someone could purchase at $500 an acre a property more than three times the size of the Australian Capital Territory and not have to go before the Foreign Investment Review Board. That is an absurdity—a total and utter absurdity. But I am glad that we now have something to talk about in agriculture. It is the only policy they have got. They are going to fix up the debt by selling off the whole joint. That is how they are going to do it, and I am looking forward to them proudly standing behind that policy at every opportunity. But not one of them has gone out. It is dead silence behind their policy of having a billion-dollar limit before any person has to go to the Foreign Investment Review Board over the sale of Australia's most fundamental asset—our land. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition will stand up today and stand behind his party's policy. Why the silence? Is there something that you are ashamed of?
My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning in a radio interview the Prime Minister said, 'I freely admit that a couple of pre-election commitments we have not been able to keep.' But today in The Australian it was reported that the Prime Minister had told the member for Longman that there were no broken promises, in an expletive-riddled exchange. As part of this new era of good government and consultation, when will the Prime Minister admit there are broken promises and apologise to the Australian people?
When I gave the answer in question to the member for Longman, it was absolutely true. But there were subsequent developments. I absolutely accept that the commitment that I gave—standing on the side of the Penrith Panthers home ground the night before the election—not to cut the ABC, we have broken that. And frankly, it is just as well we did, because the ABC had not been subject to an efficiency dividend since 1996.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will desist or leave!
A study done by the Minister for Communications demonstrated that that the ABC could more than deliver on its programming commitments with lesser funding. It was an excellent study and I make no apologies for making some sensible savings to the ABC once we realised that the ABC was more than capable of dealing with it.
Let me make it crystal clear to the member who asked the question: as we went into the election, members opposite claimed that the deficit was $18 billion. That is what they did. As we went into the election campaign they claimed that the deficit was $18 billion. The deficit for that financial year turned out to be $48 billion.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is warned!
That is a $30 billion black hole that members opposite created, that members opposite should have known about, and that members opposite should have fessed up to before the election. Faced with the budgetary position that we inherited from the former government, it was absolutely vital that we make some sensible further savings, and sensible further savings are exactly what this government has delivered.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the house on action the government is taking to get more Australians into work? What are the key challenges that have to be addressed in welfare to achieve this goal?
I thank the member for Swan for his question. In know he is interested in getting people into work; as a successful businessman he employed a lot of people himself and he knows a lot about that.
There are two principles that I think we need to adhere to when we think about the challenges that the questioner has put to me. That is, when we are looking at social services we need to remind ourselves that there are Australians who need our help. But there also Australians who go to work every day who pay tax so that we can help those people who need our help. There are 10.1 million taxpayers who pay income tax, and we need 8 million of them every day to ensure that we can pay for the $150 billion welfare bill that this country carries. That is eight out of 10 taxpayers. If we keep going the way we are going, it will be 10 out of 10—and that will not be a perfect score when it comes to success in welfare policy. We will have to get it right with the amount of funds we are committing to this to ensure that we get it to those who need it and we respect those who have to pay for it.
In this area, labour force participation is absolutely critical. We know that labour force participation, productivity and population growth are what drive our economy. When it comes to participation there are three areas that we as a government are going to focus on very sharply. Firstly, we need to address the declining rate of male labour force participation for those under the age of 25. We need to work harder in policy to ensure that young men can get out of school, get into work and stick in a job. That is a critical area of focus for the government. Secondly, we need to focus on parents with young children—particularly those on double incomes but also those who are single parents—so they can get back to work and ensure that they contribute and have a role in ensuring a better quality of life for their families. Thirdly, we need to focus on older Australians who are working. We want to encourage them—as I know you have, Madam Speaker, for many years—to stay in work. There is a particular opportunity for older females over the age 65 who have been working and are able to continue working. This is a key area of policy focus for the government. At the end of the day, we have got to seize these opportunities that are there in our people: our young men who are leaving school, our families and parents who want to get back to work and provide for their families, and those Australians who have worked all their lives and are able to continue working.
We talk about the ageing of the population. It is not a curse for a country; it is a great opportunity. It is an ageing boom that we can take advantage of as a sophisticated country, and we can become a leader in services for people who are ageing. So, at the end of the day, we are very committed to these three areas. Above all, we are going to honour those who need the help and we are going to honour those who pay for it—and that is the taxpayers.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On Monday, 39 Liberal MPs voted against the Prime Minister's leadership. On Tuesday, the Defence Minister failed to explain the Prime Minister's minute-to-midnight submarine deal. On Wednesday, the Treasurer insisted the government is sticking to its unfair budget. And today, the Prime Minister has refused to acknowledge his list of broken promises. Prime Minister, f this is what the first week of good government looks like, how bad is next week going to be?
Madam Speaker, I am the first to admit that we went through a difficult few days at the end of last week and the beginning of this week. I am the first to admit that.
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left—including the member for Jagajaga.
But I am proud of what this government has achieved in its first 16 months. We said we would get rid of the carbon tax—the carbon tax is gone. And every Australian household is $550 a year better off. We said we would get rid of the mining tax—the mining tax is gone. And Australia's reputation as a safe place to invest has been restored. We said we would stop the boats—and haven't we stopped them! And as result of stopping the boats, hundreds of people are no longer dying at sea—and 1,800 kids who were in detention under members opposite are no longer in detention.
We said we would deliver on the trifecta of trade agreements—the big three: China, Japan and Korea. Sixty-one per cent of our merchandise trade is now covered by these free trade agreements. What that means is that the vast majority of our exports will enter those markets with a great competitive advantage against their rivals. And do you know what that means? It means more jobs for Australian workers. It means lower prices for Australian consumers. And it means more markets for Australian exporters. That is the trifecta of achievement that this government has managed. And members opposite fiddled their thumbs and argued with the unions and worried about green clauses—and one thing and another—and did nothing for six long years. They did nothing about this—just like the six long years they did nothing to sort out the submarine tender.
This is a government that, wherever you look, is doing the right thing by the people of Australia. You look opposite and what is the policy of the Leader of the Opposition? Bring back the carbon tax, bring back the mining tax and bring back the boats. You look opposite and what do you see? You see a Labor Party, which was the most incompetent government in Australia's history, that has learnt nothing—and they cannot change. You look opposite and you see a Leader of the Opposition completely untrusted by the people who know him best and who have worked with him most closely. The distrust between Rudd and Shorten was intense and enduring.
Ms Butler interjecting—
Mr Giles interjecting—
The member for Griffith and the member for Scullin will desist.
The Gillard camp was contemptuous, considering him weak and duplicitous. Neither side touched him, and neither side revised its view. This man is utterly unworthy of ever being a candidate to govern this country. On that rather magnificent note—if I may say so myself—I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Madam Speaker, I seek to add to an answer as well.
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence! The Prime Minister is seeking to add to an answer, and there will be silence in order that we may hear it.
In answering one of the numerous questions about submarines, I should not have used the term 'Holocaust'. I did withdraw it. I do apologise.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
What was that?
You shouldn't have said it.
And what else did you say?
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence on both sides. When the Prime Minister has finished, the Leader of the Opposition may withdraw.
Madam Speaker, I should not have used it. I did withdraw it. I do apologise for it. But what I should also say in response to that is that, whatever happens with our future submarine contract, there will be more jobs for South Australia. That is the bottom line. There will be more subs and that means more jobs for South Australia.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Leader of the Opposition should withdraw the remark he made to the Prime Minister during that answer.
I think that is in order.
I withdraw.
Thank you.
Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for Corangamite, Swan, Capricornia, Ryan and Robertson to be members of the Speaker’s panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following document:
Closing the Gap—Prime Minister's report 2015
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
Mr Porter be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and that, in his place, Mr Irons be appointed a member of the committee, and
Mr Watts be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that, in his place, Mr Albanese be appointed a member of the committee
Question agreed to.
I move:
That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until 15 June 2015 be given to the honourable Member for Kingston for parental leave purposes.
Question agreed to.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kingston proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Liberal-National Government’s unfair plans for $100,000 university degrees.
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—
In a week of chaos by this government, in a week of instability and, quite frankly, non-adult government, we have seen mea culpas come flowing about poor salesmanship and about not getting the message right, but what the government really need to do is actually start changing their policies, start listening. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Education and Training need to start listening to their backbench. They need to start listening to the Senate and they need to start listening to the Australian people and abandon their plan for $100,000 university degrees.
This policy is completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the Australian public for many reasons—first, because it is unfair. Why should it be that only those who can afford to go to university, those who are willing to rack up $100,000 or more in debt, should get that opportunity? Well, it should not. On this side of the House, we believe that the best, the brightest, those that have the ability, should get the opportunity, no matter what their postcode or their income.
It is not surprising that the public are surprised when the Liberal-National Party bring in their plan for $100,000 degrees, because, in their Real Solutionsdocument—and we have heard a little bit about Real Solutions today—they said they would not change the arrangements for funding universities. That is right. It was very clearly stated and spelt out for the Australian people. When they got into government, they did not jump to breaking this promise straightaway, unlike many of their other promises. They maintained that they would not change the way that universities were funded. The minister for education, on Sky News back in November 2013, after the election, said, referring to university fees:
I'm not even considering it because we promised that we wouldn't.
Tony Abbott made it very clear before the election that we would keep our promises.
We want university students to make their contribution, but we're not going to raise fees and we're not going to put the cap back on.
Well, it did not take long for this promise to be broken. Indeed, on the night of the budget—although I think it was leaked the day before—we saw their plan to deregulate university fees, which will lead to $100,000 degrees. Of course, they could not get it through the Senate. They tried at the end of last year to get it through the Senate, but the Senate was listening to the Australian people—well, the majority of the Senate was listening to the Australian people. It rejected this legislation because it was completely unfair. It completely went against the grain of what is understood in this country to be a fair go.
Despite what the minister has said on regular occasions—that this would lead to a decrease in fees, not an increase in fees—he has been unable to table any evidence to show that deregulating universities will actually lead to a decrease in fees. We only need to look at other countries to see the impact. In the United States—where they have a system which the minister for education seems very keen to emulate—we have seen student debt exceed credit card debt: $1.2 trillion worth of student debt is the impact that unregulated fees lead to. We have also the more recent example of the United Kingdom, where, with the deregulation of fees, up to a cap of 9,000 pounds, only two universities, out of 123, have not gone straight up to the cap. Despite what the Liberal-National Party say about deregulation driving fees down, there is absolutely no evidence. Despite there being no evidence, they continue to peddle this unfair policy that will lead to $100,000 university degrees.
We know that fees will go up under this plan because the Liberal-National Party in their legislation have cut 20 per cent on average—we know in some areas it is more—from universities, forcing them to increase fees for students, which will have an unfair impact on them. Despite what the minister says—that it is just a small cut, or a range of different excuses—no university in this country is cheering on the government, saying, 'We want this cut of 20 per cent because we know what it will do.' The evidence has come in from universities saying that they will have to increase their fees by up to 30 per cent. But we know that, with the deregulation agenda, that increase will be a lot more.
The minister often says that every university loves his proposal—everyone loves it; it is perfect; it is wonderful. Well, according to Professor Les Field, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, the government's broken promise to deregulate universities and charge master's and PhD students for the first time ever will damage our national research effort. Of course, the Dean of Science at the University of Technology, Sydney is concerned that the government's broken promise not to deregulate universities will disproportionately hurt science students and will likely reduce science enrolments.
What type of policy is this? What type of policy is it in a country where we want to become smarter and more innovative? Will we pursue a policy that will actually reduce the number of science students? That just shows such poor vision for this country, but should we expect any more from this government? According to the last week, the last 18 months or in fact the last days that this government has been in power, I am afraid we can expect nothing more.
I would also like to draw the minister's attention to the comments made by Professor Peter Dawkins of the Victoria University, who said:
The federal government's initial package represents a radical move toward deregulation, with minimal safeguards against associated risks.
So we see an unfair proposal before the House, an ideologically driven proposal that will have fundamental implications. It will mean that many of our brightest may not get the opportunity to go to university. Many mature age students who would like to reinvent themselves and pursue a new career will not get that opportunity.
Indeed, it is time for the Prime Minister to start listening. He says he is going to listen, but we have seen no evidence whatsoever of that. Of course, he should listen to the 113,000 people who have joined Labor's campaign to stop this unfair legislation. He should start listening to the Senate, the majority in the Senate that said that this is not on. He should start listening to all those backbenchers in his own government who are deeply concerned. They may not admit it in this place but I know that, if they are getting the same feedback that we on this side of the House are getting, they will be incredibly concerned and be in the ear of our Prime Minister. So it is time this Prime Minister started listening and started acting.
It is also time that the Minister for Education started listening. I happened to be at home late the other night and saw again the $15 million worth of ads on our televisions. They are deceitful, misleading ads. The Minister for Education and the Prime Minister cannot get their own way, cannot get their unfair policy through, so they have decided to throw taxpayers' money at trying to convince everyone it is a good idea. My message for the Minister for Education and the Prime Minister is that no amount of taxpayers' money thrown at misleading ads on television is going to convince the Australian public that this is a fair policy. $100,000 for a degree or more is not fair. It does not send a signal to those in our country that the best and brightest should get the opportunity for an education. It says that if you can afford to go to uni then that is okay but, if you cannot, bad luck.
So it is time for the Minister for Education and the Prime Minister to pull their misleading ads. They make a number of claims in those ads, including that students will only pay for 50 per cent of their degree. The evidence is in. The fee structures are out. For many degrees, for business degrees at the University of Western Australia and other degrees such as that, students will be paying 90 per cent of the cost. Not only is this advertising a desperate attempt but it is actually misleading and should be condemned.
I call on the Prime Minister: it is time that he does not just do his mea culpas and say, 'I need to be a better salesman.' He needs to dump his unfair policies, including his plan for $100,000 degrees, because this is not the right direction for the country. It is not what the Australian people want and it is not what he promised at the last election.
When I first saw the topic of today's matter of public importance, my first reaction was that this was going to be a short debate, or it certainly should be a short debate, because the claim by Labor of $100,000 degrees is simply untrue. There is substantial evidence refuting Labor's claims. We know that very clearly and we also know that the higher education sector knows that.
But then I re-read the opinion piece in the Australian in August last year by Vicki Thomson, as the Executive Director of the Australian Technology Network. Vicki Thomson was certainly very direct in her message about deregulation and it is worthwhile, in the context of this debate on the MPI, revisiting her opinion piece. It was titled 'Don't be fooled by $100,000 degrees'. Seriously, Senators, deregulation will not spur such fee hikes. She says in the opening couple of paragraphs:
THE vomit theory is part of the global political lexicon: that it is only when you're so sick of saying something that you want to vomit are the people you are speaking to starting to "get it".
So let me repeat what has been said a million times: the university sector is not looking to introduce standard $100,000 degrees and deregulation won't deliver them.
She then goes on in her opinion piece to say:
A far more realistic estimate of how high fees might rise for a standard degree in a deregulated market is $12,000 to $14,000 a year—rather lower than the $100,000 being yelled from certain rooftops.
This would be in line with undergraduate degrees offered by some of the world's top public universities that already operate in a deregulated market, such as the University of California at Berkeley.
So I am going today, during this MPI, to go through the evidence one more time, clearly refuting the claims of Labor that there will be $100,000 degrees.
Let me just start by putting this into some sort of perspective, setting the scene for what I am going to say, and let me put on the table some figures. Labor cut $6.6 billion in funding to higher education while they were in office, including more than $3 billion in their last year in office alone. In April 2013 Labor cut $2.8 billion of funding to universities and students and capped self-education expenses, which risked leaving thousands of Australian nurses, teachers and other professionals out of pocket. Labor left a complicated and unwieldy mess, with large increases in regulation, compliance, reporting and unnecessary red tape and regulatory duplication applying to universities. This meant universities spent an estimated $280 million per year on compliance and reporting. Labor's poor track record is evidenced by the two independent reviews of regulation and reporting in 2013 that the previous Labor government failed to respond to. But there is more.
Labor cut the sustainable research excellence scheme by $498.8 million in the 2012 MYEFO. Labor made no provision for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy and the Future Fellowships program for research talent beyond 2015. Labor was happy to let Australia's research efforts fall off a funding cliff.
Importantly, under Labor our share of the international education market dropped. Our status as an education nation fell. Export income fell by billions of dollars from its 2009-10 peak because of Labor's neglect, policy weakness and budget handling of what is now Australia's third largest export and its No. 1 knowledge export. The number of international student enrolments fell by 130,000 between 2009 and 2012. This represents a decline in enrolments of 16 per cent over the 2009-13 period. Clearly, that is bad for our economy and for all those people who work in the education sector and the support services such as the travel and accommodation providers that prop up and help our education services.
Labor left Australia's higher education system in decline and now they are standing in the way of us fixing it. So Labor's approach, as on so many things, is to fiddle while Rome burns. It is to shirk real reform and to avoid the tough decisions that need to be made. Thankfully, our government takes an entirely different approach.
Our package of higher education reforms, which includes amendments we have agreed to following wide consultation, provides the framework to restore our status and deliver great benefits for future generations of our students, and I am very proud of that. Our reforms make possible the world-class education that Australian students need and deserve. They create the largest Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme ever. They provide the Commonwealth's support for tens of thousands of students who do not currently get it. They provide pathways into higher education for tens of thousands of students.
The legislation will abolish unfair loans for FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP students—that is a 25 per cent fee that is abolished in our reforms. That applies to many institutions around Australia, but it particularly applies to Bond University in my electorate on the Gold Coast. I have had numerous discussions with Bond University, with the students there, with the representatives of the students and also with COPHE, the Council of Private Higher Education. They are all saying that what is desperately needed for the private education sector is the reduction of those fees. That is part of our reforms and that is something that I am very committed to delivering to Bond University and other private institutions in Australia.
The reforms that we have proposed have been widely supported by the sector. I think that that is something that seems to pass by Labor members. They do not seem to grasp the fact that the sector quite widely supports the reforms that we are proposing and Labor are standing in the way of the education sector going ahead. Many of the university leaders have stressed that failure to pass these reforms in their amended form would have very damaging effects for Australia's higher education sector. The university sector has embraced these proposed reforms and failure to pass them is certainly going to lead to a backlash from all parts of the sector. I would certainly like to avoid that.
Universities Australia chief executive officer Belinda Robinson said on 28 January this year:
Our appeal to Senators as they return to Canberra is not to ignore the opportunity they have to negotiate with the Government in amending and passing a legislative package that will position Australia's universities to compete with the world's best.
Professor Sandra Harding, the chief of Universities Australia and vice-chancellor of James Cook University, said late last year:
We shouldn’t underestimate the size of these reforms or the need or urgency for these reforms … The status quo isn’t an option.
Professor Peter Lee, chair of the Regional Universities Network and vice-chancellor of Southern Cross University, said in September last year:
… deregulation of student fees [is] the only way that the sector could maintain quality and access and remain internationally competitive, as significant, additional government funding is unlikely, irrespective of political party composition.
I could go on at length. There are absolutely dozens of quotes that are out there. They all agree that deregulation is absolutely vital. But what is Labor's response to this? I think the silence is almost deafening from the other side of the House. Their only response is to talk about $100,000 fees.
You are putting us to sleep.
Well, you need to wake up and listen because you will actually learn something. Now that I have your attention, let me continue on. The Labor Party are very good at running its little scare campaign, so let me address some of that scare campaign. Firstly, the government does not plan, set or endorse any particular level of fee. That is the whole point of deregulation. It is not up to the government to decide the cost of degrees. Secondly, the fees already published by many universities—
Opposition members interjecting—
I am sure those on the other side of this House are able to read exactly the same figures that I can. The fees already published by many universities are far below what the scare campaign is claiming. The University of Western Australia has set fees for 2016 which are less than half of what the scare campaign is claiming. Those on the other side of the House are absolutely aware of that. Thirdly, if the fees are too high, universities will have empty lecture theatres. The competitive nature of deregulation will ensure that there is competition and that that will keep the fees low. So I am sure that the House will loudly reject this MPI, just as the Australian people ultimately reject Labor's continuous carping. (Time expired)
It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate in our usual engaging but respectful manner from this side of the chamber. We have come to almost the final business of the House this week. I am looking at how things have developed since we have returned in 2015 and reflect on how we started the week. It started with a fairly significant activity on the other side of the chamber around the leadership of the party.
A government member interjecting—
The member is quite right, I well remember the issues for any party dealing with leadership. The interesting thing out of the whole process was that we ended up with the same Prime Minister; however, what was significant and important was that we were told we had had pretty poor quality government up to that point in time, but good government was about to start.
I thought, 'This'll be interesting!' On Monday the higher education bill was on the Notice Paper to be debated. I thought, 'Clearly, that's going. Clearly, that bill is about to be pulled because we have now been told that we're going to have good government.' Sadly, on Thursday afternoon it is still there. Mind you, they keep pushing back the debate on it, but it is still there. Why is it still there? Obviously, the government has not realised yet—although it baffles me why it would be the case—that the potential for students to have significant increases in the cost of their university education is roundly rejected by the community.
The member who spoke previously in this debate spoke about the sector. She said that the sector supports the decision; the sector has expressed support for deregulation of fees. What she failed to mention is that by 'sector', she means a range of vice-chancellors. I do not think she is talking about the people who will carry that lifetime debt—the students.
I attended in Albury, only last week, a fabulous forum for regional universities organised by the member for Indi, who has a direct interest and profound concern for regional universities. Representatives of students there were expressing their absolute objection to the fact that these reforms will see them carry a lifetime of debt, well beyond what was envisaged by any of us who have the privilege of sitting in this place. It is the wrong way to go.
The reality, as the shadow minister outlined, was that in any other—
Government members interjecting—
Let's just look at the evidence. Let's just stick to the facts. First of all, there are universities who have put out the actual amounts that they will be charging under the deregulated scheme for a range of courses, and the shadow minister gave just one example from Western Australia. To become a lawyer and get legal qualifications at university will cost $95,000. That is a fact for you. Here is another fact. In the UK, where they deregulated, they put a cap of £9,000 on fees. Out of 123 universities there, how many universities charged less than the maximum cap?—two. So, given an opportunity, when they had a 20 per cent cut to make up, the university sector has not shown, historically, any inclination to lower their prices. In fact, in our current scheme, the universities are deregulated to some extent in that they can charge less than the maximum that is set. They could actually decreased their fees now, if they would like to. I would invite members opposite to come to their dispatch box and describe to me the rush of universities who have decreased their fees below the maximum. Since Brendan Nelson brought that deregulation in, where is the rush of universities charging less? It is a furphy, and this bill should be pulled. New government, good government— (Time expired)
I must admit, I was looking forward, in this debate on a matter of public importance, to the last contribution from the member for Kingston before she goes on leave. I thought that the member for Kingston, being one of my favourite members of the Labor Party, would give us a measured, sensible debate today. What did we get? We got a shrill, empty, dishonest contribution. I feel that, as she goes off on leave, her final contribution in this place is going to leave a sour taste in her mouth because it was so empty and shallow.
What we are seeing today is scaremongering. For those younger people around the country watching this debate—who are getting geared up this week to go to the next round of engagements for O week—the member for Kingston's contribution would certainly not have left them feeling particularly comfortable about their future.
My second favourite member of the Labor Party, the member for Cunningham, I thought might have improved the debate, but unfortunately she let me down today, as well. I was actually terrified that the member for Charlton was going to make a contribution.
Opposition members interjecting—
You are getting close! When you get down to the bottom you have a choice of two Conroys; it is a bit of a toss which way you go.
What we have heard so far from the Labor Party is simply not true. What the Labor Party is supposed to stand for is taking from the rich and giving to the poor. What they are actually standing for here now, is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. There was a famous statement a few months ago from Cate Blanchett about free university education. There is no such thing as free education; we have a redirection of taxpayer funds. But the Labor Party would like to take from people who are paying their taxes—people who are not attending university, people who have left school and have gone into a trade, who are working in the mines, in the local councils or on the farms—so that they can subsidise people from the leafy suburbs of the capitals to go to university at their expense, at the sweat of their brows. The Labor Party would like those taxpayers to be handing their money over to the privileged few so that they could get a university education scot-free and earn up to three times the salary of those other workers.
At the moment, students, through the HEC Scheme, are paying about 60 per cent of their contribution, and what is being asked is that they pay 50 per cent. Those hard workers that are paying their taxes are still going to pay 50 per cent of the contribution of their fees, and the rest of it will be paid back when they earn over $50,000 per year. I might say that many of the people I represent would only dream about earning $50,000 a year. We need to get this into perspective.
These reforms were to bring our education system, our university system, through to the 21st century so our grandchildren and children will not be going to the university of Shanghai, the university of Jakarta or the university of Port Moresby to get a better education than they would in Australia—because our system was not keeping up with the rest of the world. And do you think the Labor Party, who pride themselves on being the party for education, would get on board with these reforms and say, 'Yes, we need to do this; I know that when we were in government we ripped $6 billion out of the sector, but we'll now work with you to build these reforms'? What the Labor Party did was remove the possibility of country students getting an education, with their isolated child allowance going, so I now have parents in my electorate who have to decide which of their children get an education and which do not.
The Labor Party should be backing these reforms, with the Commonwealth scholarships, so that all people can get an education, not just the privileged few who get to earn the big dollars and work in the white-collar sector, having been subsidised by the hard work of the blue-collar sector. I am terribly disappointed about the tone of the debate we have seen here today. No-one from the Labor Party is talking about the reforms, better education for their children and grandchildren or bringing the sector back on track. (Time expired)
The previous contribution just showed how out of touch the country MPs—the Liberals and the Nationals—are with what working people in the bush actually care about, because what the cleaners and the council workers want is for their children to have the opportunity to go to university. They are people like Gamal Babiker, who came here as a refugee, who took on a job as a cleaner. He said that these reforms are the worst decision of this government to date. He said these reforms are the worst decision because he wanted his kids to have the opportunity that he did not have when he first arrived in this country. He wanted his children to be able to go to university. He is the proud father of three children, two of whom did decide to go to university under the current system, where they ended up with a small HECS-HELP debt that was affordable for them to pay off through the taxation system.
Another absolute furphy of the other side is the suggestion that working people are paying and subsidising the elite to go to university. When people go to university and they get a job and they earn more money, guess what? They pay more taxes. They pay more taxes to this government so this government has the resources to then fund the next generation of university students. We still have a progressive tax system in this country, and that is how we ensure that those on the higher incomes help out those on the lower incomes.
So there are two furphies that we have seen put forward by this government in this debate, the first being that working people do not want their children to go to university—a furphy—and the second being that people who go to university and then earn the extra dollars do not contribute towards the tax paying the next generation of people going to university.
The third furphy is the suggestion that Labor cut $6.6 billion out of higher education. ABC Fact Check has come out and said that the minister was wrong, incorrect; he lied. But, of course, why would we believe the ABC? They are only the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, who are here to make sure that we are held accountable!
Higher education is fundamental in this community, and access to higher education is key. It should be a goal of any government to ensure that demography is not destiny, that your background and the circumstances of your birth are not a barrier to excellent education. Which university you go to should be about your ability and not your ability to pay. It should be about your mark and your brain and not the size of your bank account or your willingness to get into debt.
The final point I will make today is about the fees and the absolute denial of this government, the denial of the members opposite, about the fees going up. When you put on the table, as you have, a 20 per cent cut in student funding, guess what happens? The fees go up. If you deregulate university fees and cut funding for those student courses, fees will go up. If we are serious about having the next generation of engineers to build the Bushmaster; the Hawkeye, if you ever sign the contract; and the next LAND 400, the tanks, if you ever get to signing that contract—if we want to have the engineers to be able to do those manufacturing contracts—we need to get the students and give the best and brightest students, not the ones who can afford to pay, the opportunity to go to university.
One-hundred-thousand-dollar degrees will occur if these reforms go through because this government is cutting funding and giving the universities at the same time the opportunity to increase fees to make up the difference from the funding that this government is cutting. If good government started this week, start by dumping this toxic reform. Listen to the crossbenchers. Listen to your community. Listen to the people working in the universities. Listen to what they are saying about the students that are enrolling. It is time that the students were put first. It is time that young Australians were put first so they are not the first generation to be saddled with generations of their own debt and not to have the opportunity to go to higher education.
It is with much pride that I rise today to talk about these university reforms. With regard to the contribution from the previous member, I would like to point out to them that many peak bodies and many experts within the higher education sector massively support these new reforms—firstly, Universities Australia; secondly, Regional Universities Network; the Australian Technology Network; the Innovative Research Universities; TAFE Directors Australia; Council of Private Higher Education; and the Australian Council for Private Education and Training. These are some of the peak bodies in our country that are supporting these changes.
I would also like to ask the Labor Party about their good friend David Gonski. David Gonski is the Chancellor of the University of New South Wales. Maybe they do not give a 'gonski' what Gonski says anymore. On the deregulation of university fees, David Gonski told The Australian on 2 September last year:
I think that the government are correct in this and I think that there is a real chance that the deregulation of fees—rather than making universities richer and so on—that they could produce further monies from doing that to be ploughed back to make them even greater,” he said. “To improve the student experience, have higher teacher-student ratios, etc.”
Mr Gonski added that it was his hope that “if you have deregulation that is good for the industry, that it doesn’t cause undue harm to students, financially’’.
David Gonski supports this deregulation. But I stand here today as the member for Lindsay. As the member for Lindsay, I support the University of Western Sydney, the university that is within my own electorate of Western Sydney. Professor Peter Shergold has made a massive contribution and has chaired the minister's Quality, Deregulation and Information Working Group. I understand that Professor Shergold has made significant contributions in working with this group and providing assistance to the minister in the area of deregulation of higher education. He has been significant in this.
The University of Western Sydney is an innovative and robust university that works with people right across the community. The University of Western Sydney has further gone to China to work with the Beijing University of Chinese Medicine—an agreement that will bring $20 million to the people of Western Sydney. Together with the regional cities program, we are seeing massive investment into the community, where our university will be the bedrock.
Our university will be one of the most essential pillars to create jobs for the people of Western Sydney. And what do you want to do? You want to stop jobs for the people of Western Sydney. You want to stop people from getting state-of-the-art education. You do not want to see any university in the top 20 of the world. You guys are completely delusional.
Professor Barney Glover, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Sydney, said:
The University of Western Sydney, like the rest of Australia's higher education sector, needs certainty regarding the policy, funding and regulatory environment in which it operates. This is critical to ensuring we are able to compete internationally, but also pivotal to enabling us to help drive the development of Western Sydney, Australia's third-largest economy.
You guys want to stop this. These reforms will provide the university with the autonomy and certainty which will allow it to thrive in the marketplace.
I am also pleased to note that these reforms in the amendment will also enable the University of Western Sydney to better target their programs and courses to meet the specific needs of students in greater Western Sydney.
These are reforms to a community that lives today anywhere between a 180,000 and 220,000 job deficit. We want to see jobs in Western Sydney. We want to see smart jobs in Western Sydney. I will fight for jobs for the people of Western Sydney. That is what is important. All you guys opposite want to do is to stop this country from getting ahead. You want to stop us from being globally competitive. You want to stop our education sector from being able to get onto its feet and show that we can be a thriving sector.
We need to see our service industries move to the top of our economic charts. We want to see our education being even more exported internationally. We want to see our own local students grow up to be wonderful professionals within our community. That is what the University of Western Sydney is doing. That is what this deregulation is about. I would hope you will get your heads out of the sand and start supporting the communities you represent.
Thank you to the shadow minister for moving this very important MPI. Might I say what a fantastic shadow minister we have in Amanda Rishworth, the member for Kingston, who, I am very sad to say, we will not be seeing for a little while, but I am very happy to say that it is for a very joyous reason. So congratulations to the shadow minister and all the best for your leave, member for Kingston. It is going to be a wonderful time. I hope you are banking that sleep, too.
The member for Kingston has moved this MPI today because, of course, she understands the importance of defending higher education against attacks by the Liberal government. That is something the member for Kingston has been doing for quite some time. I have been giving a bit of thought the 1990s lately, because this time feels very reminiscent to me of the 1990s.
Up in Queensland, as you might have heard, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—or you would know, of course, being a Queenslander—that we had a state election very recently, which had a very good result for the people of Queensland. It reminded me of a time in the late 1990s when we had another great result for the people of Queensland, and Labor formed government under Premier Peter Beattie, a fantastic Labor Premier. Another thing that is reminiscent of the 1990s—a less happy thing—is that Pauline Hanson has run for parliament in Queensland. You will probably remember that a lot of us were protesting Pauline Hanson in the late 1990s when she was in this place saying such terrible and divisive things in her maiden speech and in others. She has tried to stage a comeback—as though it were the 1990s again—and I am very pleased to have seen Shane Doherty reporting very recently now on Twitter that she has lost the seat by 184 votes, which can only be a good thing. I am not often pleased to see a Liberal-National Party member elected, but in this case I think we should all be pleased about that.
Another thing that is very reminiscent of the 1990s, of course—and I am sure it feels eerily familiar to the shadow minister as well—is fighting Liberal-National governments that want to make it harder for working-class and middle-class kids to get a higher education. The first time I voted was in the 1996 federal election. Unfortunately, my vote did not carry the federal election the right way, I will admit that, but I think I have been trying much harder ever since. One of the first things that then Prime Minister John Howard did when he became Prime Minister was to try and make it more difficult for working-class and middle-class kids to go to university. So we saw differential HECS arrangements, much greater HECS arrangements. People of my age were carrying much more reasonable amounts of debt after receiving a higher education degree because people of my age had the benefit of their HECS scheme introduced under Prime Minister Hawke in the 1980s. But people only a few years younger than me are paying off their higher education debts well into their 30s. If today's coalition government has its way, people will be paying off their higher education debt for their entire life. They will have lifelong debt if they choose to go to university.
Why do people go to university? The HECS scheme acknowledges that there is a private benefit to going to university. There is the benefit of job satisfaction from being able to get a job in your chosen field, if, in fact, your chosen field requires a higher education. There are plenty of ways for people to get job satisfaction that do not require a university degree. But some people want to get a university degree and they do get private satisfaction from that. And they do tend to get a higher remuneration, by and large, if they get a university degree. The beauty of our progressive income taxation system is that if people earn significantly more money than other people then they pay a higher marginal tax rate. We have this wonderful taxation system in this country where people who do obtain that private benefit make a contribution in return.
Not everyone who gets a university degree does go on to make a lot more money. Some people decide to go and work in the community sector or in the not-for-profit sector. Those people tend to already take a penalty for their decision to make a contribution of an altruistic nature to their community. The penalty that they pay is in the form of lower remuneration. For example, if you go and work for a not-for-profit organisation, you tend to get paid less than if you go and work for a for-profit organisation because of the way that not-for-profits are run. It is not an ironclad rule but, by and large, it is the case. So those people who go and get a law degree and who work, for example, for a community legal centre or those people who get a social work degree and go and work for a not-for-profit organisation already take a penalty. (Time expired)
As the member for Kingston leaves the chamber, I want to add my adulation. She is one of my favourite Labor members. I do enjoy the chat on the way back on the plane with the member for Kingston. So good luck, Amanda, and all the best. Would you believe there are a couple of my other favourite Labor MPs over the other side?
Fairness has been a principle mentioned in this debate this afternoon. I want to pick up on a comment that Paul Keating, the former Labor Prime Minister, made in 1995 about fairness when talking about higher education and the necessity to pay for the benefit that we receive from education. He said:
… a 'free' higher education system is one paid for by the taxes of all, the majority of whom haven’t had the privilege of a university education. Ask yourself if you think that is a fair thing.
So often we hear the point made of the remuneration of university students, not only the benefits they receive through the investment by the taxpayer but also their personal benefit. I think that should be not lost going forward in this debate. They do receive, over the period of their life, around $1 million more than those who do not go to university, the many millions of Australians who do not have the chance to go to university.
Other Labor members have come out publicly supporting the deregulation. I can see the member for Chifley motioning 'yes'. We heard from John Dawkins and Gareth Evans. If they are making these statements, if they are supporting deregulation why are we not? I know others have made the same point. Let's go back to what John Dawkins said. He talked about the difference being small and unremarkable reform. He also said that he had to negotiate with the Democrats to make this change. It often happens when we have to make reforms that we have to negotiate with the Senate. Finally, he made the pertinent point that it is a great pity that Labor is sitting on its hands this time. He knows there are tough decisions to be made for reform for the benefit of our nation. If only we had the same vision, the same determination to improve the tertiary education system as we had many years ago with previous Labor ministers.
We also heard today of the scare campaign being destroyed by a number of institutions. The University of Western Australia said that fees for all its undergraduate degrees would be set at $16,000 a year. The University of Technology in Queensland said degrees such as science about nursing would cost just over $30,000. How different is that to the $100,000-degree scare campaign?
Let's move forward a little to what our universities are saying. We know that they want the reform. We know that this is backed by the universities. They want to manage their own operations. They want to set their own fees so they can invest in their universities, so they can invest in their research capability. They can give their universities the best opportunity be world-leading universities, to attract the students from Asia, who are now weighing up where they go more than ever. The Chinese, in particular, are weighing up whether they will come to Australia. The Singaporeans and those from Hong Kong are all weighing up their options much more than they did before because of the increasing competitiveness of universities around the world. And that is why we need these reforms, so we can improve the quality of our universities even further.
We heard the statements made by the various supporters in the education sector of the reforms. But I just wanted to reiterate a couple of the points made for the public record. We heard the peak body saying that the reforms are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape a higher education system that is sustainable, affordable and equitable. This is important because everyone has the chance to go to university and they will not have to pay fees back until they earn a decent wage, over $50,000. There is equity, there is fairness in this and these are the right reforms. The Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, is doing a great job, a visionary job leading these reforms.
What a week it has been. This is the opening week of the parliamentary year, and what do we have? It is declared that this week is the 'start of good government'. I know how the whips have been getting people out there: 'You must get out there and talk on higher education because we need to bolster that up. Talk about the universities; they want the money.' I understand all that. But as you guys sitting on the backbench over there know, some of those 39 who did not vote for Tony Abbott—particularly those who are sitting on a margin of five per cent or less—know that in their electorates the idea of deregulating universities certainly has not gone down too well. It is up there with the GP tax, it is up there with cuts to pensions. As a matter of fact, this is one of those things that for the Liberal Party to come out and talk about deregulation is ingrained in their DNA. But this is something that you guys cannot sell to your constituents. And do you know why? Because it is a dog of a policy. It is as simple as that.
Deregulation: just think about what this means. 'We are going to say to all those institutions out there, "You can charge what you like as long as the market can bear it. As long as a student can cough up the money to do the course, you can charge whatever you like".' Market forces for higher education: that is real smart politics, isn't it? Particularly if you believe that education, and higher education in particular, has something to do with the future prosperity of our country.
We believe that higher education and people getting a degree—it is not just that they can earn more money in due course and pay more taxes in due course, it is what they deliver for the future of this country that matters. Guys, take your eyes off that at your own peril because, as I said, your constituents understand this. Either you are impervious to what is occurring in your electorates, or you are choosing to ignore it to support your leader. You know that is true.
You know deregulation comes hand-in-hand with the cost of 20 per cent, on average, to fund higher education. In other words, you are saying you can charge what you like, but we are going to take this money, we are going to do a grab for cash, out of higher education. You are going to put the costs for education on to students. So if universities are going to charge what they like, then students have to pay it. You guys think you can put your hands in your pockets and not contribute to higher education. This is where the mentality of this policy is.
And when it comes to scholarships—I know my old university got out there and Sydney decided to say how many scholarships they wanted to offer. But what they did not go on to say is who is going to fund those scholarships. The other full-paying students will fund those scholarships. Those of you who represent electorates, or purport to represent electorates, must start understanding: it is not just policy that counts; it is necessary to give people a future. If you attack higher education, you are attacking the future of your constituents. (Time expired)
I am very surprised by the hypocrisy that is being generated by the Labor Party in the House this day. We all know that debate is healthy. It makes us examine our directions and focuses us on resolutions. I had the naive concept that the Parliament of Australia's primary function was to make the life of everyday Australians better, to put policy in place that will take us to a strong and prosperous future. I was of the belief that every member in this House had the same motive, and, you know, I really still believe this. But when facts are twisted and distorted for political grandstanding that damage our future, I am both disappointed and disgusted. Talk about unfair.
It was unfair of Labor to leave a debt level for government that is going to take many, many, many years of spending constraint to get us back on track. It is almost as if Labor gave up winning the 2013 election and put expenditure plans in place that would blow out the debt level. Frankly, this is below the ethos of being a good Australian. When you rent a house and then move on to another one, you make sure the lawns are mowed, the bills are paid and the house is clean—at least that is what a good Australian does. It should be the same for a government, but not so Labor. Between 2011 and 2013, Labor announced cuts of $6.6 billion in higher education and research. What were they thinking? Where did the student activists go? Where were the demands to fix this? Nowhere to be seen.
There was $6.6 billion in cuts—let me just repeat that again: $6.6 billion in cuts—to universities under Labor. No lifeline, no options and guess where that leads? A reduction in our research capacity, fewer courses on offer and increasing international competition. This would mean the income so far brought in from foreign students studying in Australia would decline and, worse than that, our students would have to go overseas to get a decent degree. Labor seems to lack all economic credibility. Seriously, is this the outcome you expected, or was it just another instance of an unintended consequence? What a mess. 'Oh, well, the coalition will fix it, they always do. It's not our problem.' It is Labor's problem, and it is Labor's responsibility to work with the government to find a resolution, a pathway. This continual political grandstanding is ridiculous. Labor rips the budget up and the important tertiary education, and then falsely criticises the process of deregulation, which assists our universities to survive. There will be a number of scholarships for students—80,000 of them in fact. These are students who would not normally get to university, and kids, like kids in my seat, would finally get a chance to go to university. It is appalling that this is being blocked. They can get diplomas and other qualifications and they can still get through the system.
Now let us get down to the nitty-gritty of this matter of public importance, this slogan that Labor has made up—yes, I repeat, made up—about these $100,000 degrees. Just exactly where did that come from?
I have investigated a little and done some research and I could not find any university that has actually published a fee of $100,000. I did some material research and a local university said that the prospect of $100,000 degree would mean that they would have to increase their fees by more than 120 per cent—yes, 120 per cent. Does anyone, apart from the Labor Party, think that any university business management would even imagine such an increase? What utter rubbish.
Universities are already very competitive. They have a number of assets: the reputation of their qualifications, their employment post graduation and, you guessed it, the cost of their courses. When will Labor get real? When will they actually tell the truth? In my area I have two Labor members who are both shadow ministers and they combine together to put out press releases against a single backbencher. To me, this means they really know they are on shaky grounds and they know they caused this problem with the Labor policies in the first place.
Instead of spreading mythology, let us list the benefits: increases to tertiary education and increases to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. HECS is not new; it has always been there. You only have to pay it back after you are earning $50,000. The first speaker today said that universities are not supportive; well they are—lots of vice-chancellors, chancellors and their administration. More importantly, these 80,000 students will have access to many forms of higher education. Let us put our students first. Let us increase their opportunities. For goodness sake, put politics aside and put our youth first.
Order! The discussion has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That Ms O’Dwyer be discharged from the Standing Committee on Economics and that, in her place, Mr Alexander be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
Before the break I was reflecting on the point that social media was causing a lot of concern for a number of people, particularly its use as a tool to inflict bullying behaviour. Some of those stats are quite extraordinary. The University of New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre says that one in five of our nation's children between the years of 10 and 17 experience cyberbullying. Evidence shows that cyberbullying experienced by some young people leads to lower levels of connectedness, higher levels of loneliness and a feeling of less security at school. So it does have a big impact.
I earlier noted that Australia does not rank well in world standings when it comes to the degree to which young people and people generally are bullied via social media. There has been an admission—and I reflected very briefly on this—by some social media that they are not doing a good job. In fact, the CEO of Twitter—if I can use his rather florid and colourful terms—admitted that 'Twitter sucks at dealing with trolls' and agreed it is their fault. He said that in a memo to his staff. Dick Costolo, the CEO, to his great credit accepts responsibility for the problems and promises to change it on the way. The issue for us is that the continual promises do not seem to eventuate.
The shadow minister, the member for Greenway, indicated that some of the social media services in Australia have committed themselves to improving the way they work. She detailed some of the things that they do. In fact, under voluntary agreements that exist—and we had this detailed elsewhere—they were undertaking a number of things to actually improve their track record on this issue. In some cases Facebook even undertakes programs to promote antibullying but, as I said before, people often experience difficulty in trying to remove material that might cause them some grief.
The government has committed to this mechanism. We have indicated support for their legislation and there will be interest to see how effective it is. We have highlighted what we are concerned about—some practical problems. For instance, technology is evolving. The social medial that we have experienced previously has a degree of, if I can call it, permanence. Whereas, there are some platforms that are emerging, be it Snapchat or other avenues where the messages that are communicated are not around for a long period of time, so it is hard to capture the evidence and then hard to act on it. There are also some practical impediments. Again, the shadow minister has outlined this. For instance, with end-user notices—how do you deliver it, in some cases to anonymous users? How are you able to track those end users down if they hide and use anonymity to protect themselves but still undertake bullying? The speed at which those notices can be issued can potentially be an issue as well—and this has been raised with the government.
We have said that there may be some issues there that need to be followed up. For instance, what happens when the end user is a child or a minor? How will that actually be given effect? These things do happen and have been experienced. I imagine this is something that the government has been trying to work through as well. This degree of complexity has meant that there has been a delay in bringing this to the parliament. I do not say that as a criticism. I think it reflects the fact that this is a wretchedly complex area to try and move very surely in, but it is something that is of concern.
The best thing is that there is going to be a statutory review period put in place. There is a statutory review mechanism which is, as has been reflected, highly appropriate and certainly welcomed. Ultimately, however, the best thing is—and I am a firm believer in this—that if the market is able, if the companies, if the industry itself, if the sector itself is able to deal with this, it is way more preferable than government intervening. The problem has been they have not been able to do so in an effective way and that has triggered responses on both sides of the House in one shape or form. But, the better they get at this, then hopefully after a statutory review period, there may even be the prospect of us being able to remove these types of regulations down the track. In the meantime, I reiterate the opposition's commitment to work with the government on this. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to the bill.
I rise to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014. Before I get to the detail of the bill, I would like to quote a section from my maiden speech. I quote:
Social media will be the great challenge of this generation. While it presents incredible opportunity, it is complex, far reaching and constant. It can envelop every waking minute, preventing victims of bullying and abuse from getting any respite. Social media's greatest threat is to our children, not because of the medium itself but because you can never be sure who is on the other end. Our challenge as elected members of parliament will be to find the delicate balance between free speech, the right to information and protecting the vulnerable.
This bill is about trying to strike that balance. It is about providing opportunity for parents. As a parent of a 14-year-old young son and two young daughters, one of 12 and one of seven, I can tell you that this is an issue which is of incredible interest to me, my family and my wife. It is a challenge we deal with on an almost daily or weekly basis.
Certainly, the ability for a e-safety commissioner, which gets enacted under this bill, gives a single point of contact. As a member of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, I have had the unique opportunity, along with my colleagues of course, to be briefed by the Australian Federal Police and other services around just how difficult these things for police. The main point of contact before this bill was around was the Telecommunications Act and the use of a carriage service. It is fairly difficult to get our enforcement agents interested in victims of bullying on Facebook. They do take action and there are other opportunities but this is good step forward.
We will also provide $7½ million under the National Safe Schools Framework to allow schools to access the online safety program. This really is a big issue. As was stated by the previous member, of Australians aged between eight and 17 around 20 per cent of those people are receiving online bullying and discrimination. It is incredibly difficult to monitor. As I said before, as a parent it is something of great concern to me—great concern indeed. The bill also provides for a 2-tier rapid removal process. But as I said, the best part of this bill is there is a position for a parent to go to when they have concerns.
The debate in my house on the weekend was about passwords and access to iPads and iPhones and everything else, including iPods. My young son of 14 considered it more important that he have his privacy than mum and dad have access to his devices. I would suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that was an argument which he has lost. However, it did take some considerable motivation in order for that to happen. I am sure that his sister is enjoying her new iPhone. It is a difficult thing to get across.
From a personal viewpoint, in my day—and this is certainly not something I would advocate, and it is not something I have ever done—if a young gentlemen was outside throwing rocks on the window of your daughter's room trying to attract some attention, it was quite easy to go outside and have a discussion and a suggestion about other opportunities for them to take up elsewhere. Unfortunately, with social media that opportunity just does not exist. Certainly in terms of harassment it can be very difficult. As a young gentlemen, at school I was probably fifty-fifty—50 per cent of the time I was the protagonist and 50 per cent of the time I was the recipient. So I think it is a bit of a balance. However, you could actually get away from that. You could literally get on your pushbike and go home and do something else.
With social media there is no opportunity for escape. It is a text message, it is Facebook, it is Twitter, it is all the other activities which run constantly. I do not need to tell the other members of the House just how difficult it is to deal with those things, which we deal with regularly and constantly. If I look at some of our members right now I am sure they are on social media sending text messages and all those other things. But for a child, someone who is only young, who is susceptible, who perhaps has some difficulty making the right decisions, this is an incredibly serious issue.
I would like to speak about a young lady who I met yesterday, Britteny Hunter. Britteny is one of the winners of the Heywire competition from my hometown of Bundaberg and is very social media savvy, I must say. It was an absolute pleasure to meet Britteny. She is a graduate of Shalom Catholic College in Bundaberg. I took her on a behind the scenes tour of Parliament House. She met the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, and at the time she informed us that her flooded home was one which we gave a helping hand to during the flood. The now Prime Minister, the Minister for Agriculture and I actually lifted some pianos.
Every summer an Australian state or territory, or several at a time, face the ravages of bushfires. While my home state of New South Wales, fortunately, was able to avoid what looked like an early season threat, others were not able to escape the impact of fires. Both South Australia and Western Australia recently were heavily affected.
One of the great assets we have in Australia is the volunteer firefighter—a selfless, skilled and tireless individual who toils through the summer months and trains the rest of the year to protect their fellow Australians. I was very pleased to hear of the efforts just weeks ago of the Plumpton Rural Fire Service in my electorate of Chifley. We are proud to have three units: Plumpton, Shanes Park and Eastern Creek. Ten members in two crews from the Plumpton Rural Fire Service dropped everything on the home front and answered the call to battle fires in South Australia. Under the leadership of Senior Deputy Captain Trevor Haskins, the Plumpton crew carried out duties on the fire line between Brookside and Braecroft in the Adelaide Hills. It is heartening to know that in this country a volunteer firefighter knows no boundaries and our states and territories are only too grateful to see a red tanker from a long way away roll through their town to help for as long as they are needed.
The theme of selflessness leads me to pay tribute to another fine servant of my area, Sajana Nand, who was recently named Blacktown Citizen of the Year. A more fitting recipient of this prestigious honour I would be unable to find. The five minutes allotted to me in this space would not be enough to detail Sajana's list of achievements for his local community and his workload for others. Sajana is the founder and President of the Australian Hindu Multicultural Association as well as a committee member of the Hindu Council of Australia. He is on the executive of the Blacktown City Libraries Multicultural Community and he is a volunteer with Sydwest Multicultural Services, which is also based in Blacktown.
The Australia Day Awards ceremony saw Sajana share the stage and the limelight with Amy McMillan, who was named Blacktown Young Citizen of the year. The year 12 student from my old high school, Mitchell High, was recognised for her tireless fundraising efforts. Notably, she has been working exceptionally hard to raise money for causes such as for causes such as cystic fibrosis and leukaemia awareness and treatment programmes.
I wanted to recognise the efforts of both Sajana and Amy on the floor of the House and also to applaud them on behalf of our community.
Finally, there has been some other great news in recent days in my electorate, in particular with the announcement that the Bidwill Shopping Plaza will re-open. Some may wonder why that opening would warrant such a mention on the floor of this chamber or why the re-opening of a group of shops would be celebrated in this way. In Bidwell, for many years, families have had to travel a considerable distance to buy necessities—in an area that sometimes does not have the best transport available to citizens. If they wanted to buy basics such as milk, bread or even nappies locally, they had to use a local drive-through liquor outlet in Bidwell. For a lot of families that is not acceptable. After many years and an estimated $3 million spent on renovations, the shopping centre is going to open next week.
I congratulate Foodworks, the supermarket chain that took the decision to invest in Bidwill by opening a supermarket inside the plaza. I am very pleased that the majority of the 25 staff who will work there will be locals. So there are not only more services available but also jobs for people in the area.
The decision by Foodworks to open in Bidwill has been the catalyst for at least five other small retailers deciding to establish businesses inside the plaza. There is a bakery, a hairdresser, a discount shop, a newsagent and a food outlet. The food outlet was the only operating business in the area before the centre closed its doors. There is a medical centre on the way as well, and that is fantastic news too.
We all know that businesses are not charities; they operate on the basis that they are made viable by patronage. That is why I urge the Bidwill community, which has been very vocal for the re-opening of the plaza, to now support their local businesses in that centre. I have been very encouraged by comments posted on my Facebook page by Bidwill residents who are promising to do their bit by shopping at the plaza. There have been comments like those from Trish, who said, 'This is great news, bringing community together and offering services back to the people. It is big and positive.'
It is great to hear good news stories like that, especially when it means that families will have access to services and young people will be able to get jobs. To the new tenants of Bidwell Shopping Plaza and to the centre owner, Ralph Tomkins: we wish you every success and we will be there supporting you all the way.
I rise today to recognise the great contribution the federal government is making in New South Wales to infrastructure, in particular the Western Sydney infrastructure package that the Prime Minister announced during the recess of this parliament. This long-term plan for better infrastructure in the west of Sydney is one of the most welcome developments for our major city and major economy in our nation's history.
If you could start again with Sydney, you absolutely would. It is a jumbled mess, it has been from the beginning, and infrastructure is perhaps the single key priority for all of the residents in all of the suburbs in the north, south, east and west of the city, and it will take a determined effort over many decades to ensure that our major city has the properly planned and funded transport that it needs. In that regard, I want to also commend the Baird Liberal government on the progress that is being made on the north-west rail line. This $10 billion rail project is going ahead and is almost a fifth of the way through construction, just three years into the first term of the Baird Liberal government. I can also report to the House that this project is ahead of schedule and under budget. This is an amazing record for one of the biggest rail tunnels in the Southern Hemisphere. To put together a qualified and experienced team to deliver one of the biggest rail tunnels in the Southern Hemisphere—in fact, one of the biggest rail tunnels in the world—in our biggest city, under budget and ahead of schedule is a fantastic achievement.
A bigger achievement is that the Baird government and the Abbott Liberal government are funding even more infrastructure, not just the rail project of the north-west rail line but important roads and arterial networks throughout Western Sydney. The Commonwealth is contributing $2.87 billion to the projects. And the 10-year road investment package is $3.6 billion for Western Sydney. The Western Sydney infrastructure plan is to provide better linkages throughout the region and the region's growing population, including reducing commuting times.
We, in Sydney, know the damage that is done to families and to business, and to the local and regional economies, through spending so much time in gridlocked traffic. The arteries of commerce—our roads and rail—are unable to function at various parts of the day because of absolute gridlock and out-of-date roads. These arteries are being unblocked and improved and, of course, that will mean greater economic benefits for Sydney.
The Prime Minister also recently launched the southern end of NorthConnex, which will be of great benefit to my electorate, in particular, but also to the whole of Sydney. Trucks and transport corridors will now be able to go under a tunnel—under Sydney—straight through our city to the Central Coast and the north of New South Wales.
These are initiatives—and the Abbott and the Baird Liberal governments are combining to actually do the job on the ground—that are really going to turn around our city. Turning around Sydney and improving our economic performance in New South Wales will help the entire country in these difficult economic times. The infrastructure does not just mean jobs—although, it means a lot of jobs for people in Western Sydney. Construction jobs and jobs for apprentices will help to address that youth unemployment issue that we are seeing in Western Sydney at this time. These apprenticeships and jobs will be vital for getting the message to people that the government is serious about investing in nation-building infrastructure, and investing in productivity-increasing and productivity-enhancing projects that not only deliver jobs but provide those vital arteries for commerce to function.
I am proud to be part of the government that is working so hard on the ground in actually delivering this infrastructure. This is not being talked about. This is not just an election commitment or a plan. These bulldozers are working. These roads are growing. The north-west rail line is one-fifth complete. The tunnelling machines are tunnelling under the earth, as we speak—and we are ahead of budget and ahead of schedule. It can be done by competent governments. It is being done by the competent Abbott Liberal and Baird Liberal governments working in concert to provide the vital infrastructure for Western Sydney and for New South Wales that we all know we need.
I am looking forward, as a local member, to getting my first train. According to the census, I have the highest number of cars per household of any electorate in this place. And that train line, when laid down, will give people the options they need in order to reduce the number of cars on our roads, provide a great experience and get around our city of Sydney. I commend the government, and I look forward to the great things that are coming to Sydney.
I rise to pay tribute to former New South Wales MLC Paul O'Grady, who passed away on 18 January this year at the age of 54. At Paul's farewell ceremony his brother, Tony O'Grady, spoke about what an extraordinary family Paul grew up in. His parents were devout Catholics, who, Tony said, probably voted DLP until 1972. Tony described Paul as being irascible, brilliant and loving. His sister, Kerrie O'Grady, talked about him as being mercurial and eccentric, thoughtful and haphazard, tolerant and open—and a gypsy. Paul, it was pointed out, had many families—not just his biological family, but the many people across Sydney and across Australia who drew on his support. Father Graeme Lawrence pointed out to many of those in attendance that perhaps some did not realise that Paul was a devout Catholic. He said that Paul's Christianity always caused him to be asking the questions such as: how many people did you feed at Sunday lunch? What do we do to feed more?
After the 1989 earthquake he spoke up in favour of getting the necessary resources to rebuild the cathedral in Newcastle—causing not a little angst among insurance companies. John Faulkner spoke about how he had first read of Paul O'Grady in the Parramatta Advertiser under the headline 'Political chief at 15'. He was a young man in a hurry. By 18 had become the youngest ever New South Wales organiser in the Australian Workers Union's history. As John put it, he had a habit of turning up at the doorstep and moving in.
He did not come out in any sense. He was out. When he was elected in 1988 to the legislative council, he advertised in the Sydney Star Observer for anyone who needed help. This was, as Senator Faulkner pointed out, still a time when gay panic was too prevalent and when there was vilification of gays in the military. Paul, himself, was instrumental in passing vilification legislation and in drawing attention to gay bashings occurring in Sydney. He invited all members of the New South Wales parliament, with the exception of a husband-and-wife pair, to march with him in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. He was a role model to many young people. He worked on issues such as Indigenous equality, policing, the environment, law reform and euthanasia.
In 1994 Paul's partner, Murray, died of AIDS. Paul and Murray were two of the first to contract HIV in Australia. In resigning from politics in 1996 Paul announced that he had AIDS. Many of us had expected that he would pass away not long after that—indeed, I remember visiting him in the Sacred Heart Hospice in the mid-1990s. But he lived for another two decades working for Sandra Nori, Frank Sartor and Sharon Grierson, among others. In that time he stood up to the unworthy and to the shonky. As New South Wales opposition leader Luke Foley has said:
He was an adviser to me. He was somebody I respected for 25 years. I think of his enormous courage not only as the first openly gay member of [the New South Wales] parliament but also speaking about his battle with HIV.
Unlike so many in politics, he left under his own terms. He was always generous to me, as a young Labor activist, and I admired the irreverence that he brought to his observation of politics. He was somebody who took no interest in the pomp and status. He was interested in ideas, in energy and in those who wanted to make a difference. From his example, we can learn a great deal. My thanks to the doctors and medical researchers who kept Paul with us for those two extra decades. He died too young, but he did so much.
I rise tonight to talk about a wonderful Territorian, Ms Giovanna Webb, who happens to be a good friend of mine. I am delighted that Giovanna has been appointed as an executive committee member of the Council for Australia-Latin America Relations, or COALAR, as it is known. It sounds like 'koala', which I thought was quite ironic because Giovanna is actually a crocodile farmer from the Northern Territory. When somebody was talking about COALAR, I was thinking, 'No; it's crocodile,' but anyway it is completely different. Giovanna was in 2013 awarded Northern Territory Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Rural Woman of the Year, and in that same year she was a finalist in Australian of the Year. So she is quite an extraordinary young woman. She came from Colombia. I was at a function where she said that she is the real Colombian woman—she has still got that very thick Colombian accent and she is a very entertaining and very smart woman. She is going to be able to contribute a lot on this committee, and I am very proud to have her as the Northern Territory representative on COALAR.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Scullion and I announced, earlier in the week, appointments for former Deputy Chief Minister Michael Reed and Rob Kendrick, who is another good friend of mine, from days gone past. Mike has been appointed as the chair of the Regional Development Australia committee and Rob is his deputy. Mike, as I said, is a former Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. He was in politics from 1987 to 2003 and made an extraordinary contribution to Territorians. So it is wonderful that he is going to be on that committee and provide an insight from the rural Territory. Rob Kendrick is a former police officer who has worked all across the Territory and also has a very good insight into some of the difficulties that we face in the Territory, particularly around infrastructure. So I am really looking forward to working with these two wonderful Territorians, who I believe are going to be able to make a big difference and work to ensure that we, as the Abbott government, are able to implement infrastructure that is going to support the Northern Territory, because we believe that we are leading the charge to develop northern Australia. It is wonderful that they are on that committee and that they share my passion for the Territory.
Talking about RDA funding, I visited the Michael Long Learning and Leadership Centre a couple of weeks ago, and that was a project that received, I think, $7 million of RDA funding. Michael Long is a very well-known Australian, and I am glad that he is a constituent of mine. This facility is just outstanding. I have never seen anything like it in the Territory. It is going to really benefit Indigenous children, particularly those from remote areas. Seeing the vision that Michael had come to fruition is just fantastic. The project is 100 per cent complete. Local builders Sitzler have done a fantastic job, as they do with every build that they are involved in. They always overdeliver. It is not very often that you hear stories about overdelivering, but that is exactly what has happened in this situation.
I would also like to advise you, Madam Speaker, that the Tiger Brennan Drive upgrade is well underway. That was one of my election commitments. The bulldozers are out, just like they are in Sydney. Even though we are in the middle of the wet season, it is all work underway. I look forward to that project being completed, with the help of the Northern Territory government.
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I enjoy hearing everybody's reports from around their electorates at this part of the day. I want to take the opportunity in the adjournment debate today to fulfil a promise to some people in my electorate whom I visited last week. They are a group of parents who presented an online petition and a written petition to me and the state member. There are over 700 signatures here, so I undertook to them to report to the House and to pass on to the new Minister for Social Services the concerns that they asked me and the state member to come and hear.
In particular, this relates to the fact that the organisation called Big Fat Smile, which was formerly Illawarra Children's Services, have been operating a Communities for Children program since 2008. These are programs that go into more disadvantaged communities and operate to get young children the opportunities they need to make sure they are well prepared for school. In July last year, the Department of Social Services opened its grant funding for the Families and Communities Program, amongst other programs. Under that, Big Fat Smile applied for a grant to continue operating their Communities for Children program in the two postcodes of disadvantage that they had been working in for the previous six years—that is, 2502 and 2518. Late last year, sadly, they were notified that they were no longer going to receive funding and the services would have to close. This caused a great deal of anxiety and prompted the parents to get together to start the petition to save the playgroup. It was pleasing to see that early this month the government decided to extend funding, but my concern for them, and their concern, is that it has only been extended for six months, until the end of June this year. So I am taking up the call for them to the minister to recognise how significant and important this program is and to extend the funding for a much more sustainable period of time than that six months.
Local mums Amanda Allen and Kristy-Lee Hammond were the two who decided to get active when they were concerned about the loss of this program, and I commend them for their actions. Really it was quite extraordinary that in such a short period of time they were able to get over 700 signatures on the petition. But what was encouraging is that, as I am sure many of us who have communities of disadvantage in our seats know, something they are very good at is coming together and supporting each other when they know something is important for their kids. That is exactly what happened here.
Mrs Hammond has three children who have participated in programs at the centre. It runs out of the Bellambi Neighbourhood Centre, a fantastic local community board run service. She said to local media who attended on the day:
Being involved over a long period of time, I know how valuable it is on so many levels … It breaks down barriers between different people in the community, from a mum whose husband works all the time to a single mum who might not have any support, it bridges gaps in that relationship between parents.
These parents are participating in learn-to-swim classes for their kids and in support sessions and information sessions for parents, and all sorts of wraparound services are part of the playgroup. Christine Spackman, who is the acting manager of the Bellambi Neighbourhood Centre—a fabulous lady too—said the benefit of the playgroup was priceless. In her view it was 'impossible to cost the loss' of the playgroup, because of its significant impacts on the generation of children coming up. The possible closure of the after-school drop-in centre that the neighbourhood centre runs, which would also result, was of great concern in an area of disadvantage.
I think it was probably most well captured with the WIN TV interview with Ryder. Ryder is four years old. He is very happy chasing bubbles and talking to other kids. The journalist said to him, 'Why do you like it here?' I will quote his words directly: he said, 'Because it's really cool here and because some people want to take it.' He was very upset about that. So, on behalf of Ryder and those fabulous parents who got together, I will be writing to the minister, just letting him know how important this is to the community and asking him to have a look at the possible options to give them some more sustainable funding over the longer term.
We are reaching the next critical phase in the redevelopment of the marina at Ocean Reef. This represents the most significant economic development project in my electorate of Moore. The site covers a total of 57.8 hectares of land-based development and 33.6 hectares of development off the coast.
Unfortunately, to date, progress with the redevelopment of the Ocean Reef Marina has been slow. Residents have waited for more than 30 years to see any measurable progress. By contrast, the Hillarys marina to the south was constructed in the mid-1980s and has become one of Western Australia's top tourist destinations in terms of the annual number of visitors. Similarly, the Mindarie Marina to the north was developed in the early 1990s. Ocean Reef is the third marina within my electorate and has remained the only undeveloped marina despite basic infrastructure being in place for some three decades.
The project has been slow to progress through the lengthy bureaucratic planning approvals processes. In recent times, some positive advances have been made through the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Joondalup and the Western Australian state government. The application has since been referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission for assessment.
My recent constituent survey indicates strong support from the local community and growing frustration at the overall delays. Repeated assurances have been given by political representatives over the years that the project is just around the corner. The overwhelming sentiment in the community is to see construction commence.
What is much needed for a project of such magnitude is a renewed approach to reinvigorate the process. Local and state governments will struggle financially to deliver a project of this size. We need innovative leadership that offers practical solutions to better project-manage this landmark redevelopment. We must carefully consider what can be done differently rather than adopting the same old tired approach.
It is evident that the stage has been reached where private sector involvement and investment in the project is required—involvement and investment by experienced marina developers with sufficient financial capacity and a proven track record of delivering marina based projects. These developers will need to have access to capital with support from major banks and superannuation and institutional funds to attract the estimated $800 million of investment required.
Government must enlist the involvement of the private sector though an open and accountable competitive tender process. Only the private sector will add a sense of urgency and really drive the process to achieve project milestones. Experience demonstrates that the private sector has a track record of delivering more efficient project management and is more performance driven and deadline focused. A greater commercial focus will accelerate delivery of the project.
Not only will private sector involvement achieve better commercial outcomes; involvement of the best marina developers in Australia, with established track records of delivering quality, liveable marina developments in locations such as Sydney and the Gold Coast, will bring architectural and design excellence to Ocean Reef. A mix of residential development combined with hospitality, tourism and recreational facilities will deliver lifestyle amenity for the community that includes the provision of some 850 boat moorings. Overall, it is reasonable to expect the transformation to have a positive impact on real estate values in surrounding suburbs.
In summary, more timely delivery of the project will yield considerable taxation and revenue benefits for all levels of government, as well as creating new jobs and promoting local employment self-sufficiency. Furthermore, diversification into tourism and hospitality will make the local economy less susceptible to economic downturns in other industries. I am a strong advocate for the private sector to be involved in the Ocean Reef Marina project sooner rather than later, as a reliable means to accelerate the delivery of this landmark asset for our local community.
It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 17:00
In this fine chamber I would like to raise the matter of some very young people that I am very proud of. On Monday, 15 December last year, 46 students from 45 local schools in my constituency were recognised at my Holt Community Spirit and Leadership Awards, which were held at the Cranbourne Community Theatre.
The Hold Community Spirit and Leadership Awards were attended by about 250 people. I want to give this chamber a bit of a background as to why I made the awards. We hear a lot about my region if things go wrong, which will make the front pages of the Herald Sun or The Age. But you hear so little about what goes right. And what is going right in the great area that I represent are with the thousands and thousands of young people that are the future of our country and the future of our community. And they do good works, and they attend school each day.
I wanted to amplify and highlight the good that our young are doing in our community—not just the bad. I have been running these awards for many years, and I say to this chamber that it has caught on. We have hundreds of people now attending these ceremonies, as we did with the Holt Australia Day awards.
In the time remaining—I do not have much—I would like to talk about some of the young people that I gave this award to and some of the work that they have been doing, which should be commended. For example, there is a young volunteer in my office called Casey Lowen, who has been through some very challenging circumstances, in losing her sister in a car accident. She is a young lady with a great future ahead of her from Narre Warren South P-12 College.
Casey was involved in the Walk for Andrea, which is a VCAL fundraising walk from Narre Warren South to Flinders Street station. It is 48 kilometres. Casey has some challenges that make even walking a kilometre hard, but walking 48 kilometres and raising over $5,000 for breast cancer awareness just takes my breath away. I am very proud of her and I want her to know how proud I am of her.
There were other impressive stories, like the story of Rachel and Kelly Jones from Beaconhills College, who, in response to their much loved PE teacher, Scott McConchie, who was fighting a terminal brain tumour, walked 20 kilometres in 3½ hours and raised $1,700. Another story was of a young man from Clyde Primary School, who is dedicated to the local community. Daniel is an ambassador to local war veterans. You hear about young people not respecting war veterans. That is not the case in my region. He does a lot of work in Anzac Day and Remembrance Day ceremonies.
I am running out of time. I could give you 46 examples from 45 schools. Let's talk about the positive work that our young people do. They are the future of our country. If we focused more on that and less on the negativity I think our young people would feel that their contributions were valued much more.
I want to take the opportunity this morning to talk about a couple of tremendous community organisations in my community, which I have had the pleasure of meeting with in recent times. The first is Padstow Community Care, which is an agency set up as a charity under the Padstow Baptist Community Church. Padstow Community Care assists many people in our community who are vulnerable and disadvantaged. It has been operating since 1985 and its services have grown steadily over the years.
One of the services that Padstow Community Care runs is the Renew Community store. The store sells second-hand clothing and household goods. All of the profits from these items go back into the store and back into the community. The prices are very low, which enables people who are struggling to purchase items that they might not otherwise be able to.
The centre also has a financial guidance and counselling service, which is very well used in my community. It aims to raise—and often does—about $5,000 every week through donations from the community, which is reflective of the esteem in which it is held.
During my visit in January, I met with the pastor Jamie Wendt and also emergency relief worker John Summerville among other members of the team. It is a terrific service, and I commend Padstow Community Care and everyone else who was involved.
Also in January I had the pleasure of joining the Filipino community of Sydney at the Bayanihan Hopping Spirit House project. This was a fantastic project where, as part of the Sydney Festival in Bankstown, the Filipino community came together and each night kicked off the festival by carrying in the large Bayanihan Hopping Spirit House—a bamboo frame and substantially heavier wood on the inside of it. One night, on 24 January, I joined the Filipino community in carrying the house into the festival area. It was very heavy but it was a great experience and a nice way to open the festival each evening.
It is a tradition in the Filipino community and it reflects the custom of neighbours helping families to relocate a house when they move. Long bamboo poles are placed beneath the frame of the house, and then the house is carried in.
The artist Alwin Reamillo created the house and had the idea of doing this as part of the Sydney Festival. It was a terrific experience, and I congratulate the Filipino community on its success.
Each year the Hume City Council in my electorate, apart from the very successful citizenship ceremony on Australia Day, also awards its Australia Day awards, recognising outstanding individuals in our community who go above and beyond in their call of duty and support of others.
At this year's Australia Day ceremony, Mr Samet Istar, a Dallas resident, who has championed cultural understanding and community in our pride was awarded the 2015 Hume Citizen of the Year. Samet Istar, apart from being a good friend of mine, is a 29-year-old young Australian, who was a founding member of the Australian Turkish University Students Association and is the current president of the Australian Turkish Institute.
Samet is above all a great ambassador for multiculturalism in our community. He is involved in many events and activities. He is a volunteer presenter with the 3ZZZ radio network, and his work in promoting intercultural understanding and fostering community pride has made a great impact, particularly amongst young people.
Samet selflessly takes time out of his very busy schedule to volunteer across numerous areas of community life, including his work with the local Turkish community in advocating and educating on issues affecting Australians of Turkish background.
He has also organised humanitarian projects by supplying food and support to orphans in Cambodia and Myanmar, and he has worked with the Red Cross on their very successful saving 1,000 lives blood drive campaign.
Samet is integral to the organisation of local community festivals. He is very heavily involved in the upcoming ANZAC Centenary celebrations and he is absolutely brilliant at creating network opportunities that bring young people and mentors together.
He has a particular interest in assisting families and individuals who are afflicted by drug abuse, and I want to take this opportunity to thank him for taking the initiative to write to the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement encouraging a parliamentary inquiry into the use of ice and its ramifications, especially in our local migrant communities.
Samet Istar is a very deserving recipient of our city's highest accolade, the Hume Citizen of the Year, and I want to wholeheartedly congratulate him and thank him for his ongoing service to our community. He is a fine example of a young Australian who, on his own initiative and goodwill, has decided that he wants to contribute to his local community. He wants to help young people as they go through school and have social issues. I look forward to him being a great leader in our community.
It is always a terrific opportunity, as we have heard from several of our colleagues across the chamber today, to speak about some of the positive stories in our communities, and it is in that vein that I would like to continue today.
It is important for us to recognise some of the great achievements of our local people, and I would like to kick the year off by highlighting the efforts of some of our local champions. Jamie Stone, from Upper Coomera, who has been named in the Australian hockey squad. I wish her all the best with her future playing for Australia and hope that she makes the Hockeyroos team for the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics and also the Commonwealth Games in 2018.
Another local sporting champion, from Loganholme, is taking on some of the best golfers Australia has ever produced in an effort to reach the 2016 World Blind Golf Championships. What is truly remarkable about this rising star is that he is taking on some of the players in the world, such as Karrie Webb and Yani Tseng. Glenn Niciejewski is a terrific guy, and I have met him on many occasions around our local golf courses—although I do not get to play as much as I would like these days—and ambassador for our local community. I wish him every success in reaching his goal of reaching the top eight, needed to qualify for the 2016 World Blind Golf Championships.
I would also like to congratulate two young scouts from the Beenleigh Scout Group, Matthew Perry and Ryker Hasenkam, for being awarded the coveted Grey Wolf Award. I hear both boys have worked hard to achieve this award, which is recognised as the ultimate badge for Cub Scouts.
I would also like to recognise the work of Mim Hopkins and her husband, Andrew, for their work in establishing a group for local seniors in Bethania. This group has become so popular that they will start a second group this year. The great thing about this group is that it caters for residents living in several aged-care communities around Bethania as well as for those who are still living independently. The group's success is a credit to Mim and Andrew.
Finally, I would also like to highlight some of the terrific achievements of the youth management team at the Beenleigh PCYC. They are tackling bullying head-on with their music video Come Back Home. Members of the youth management team said they wanted to do something about the problem, because nearly everyone had experienced or witnessed bullying at some stage in their lives. The group produced the song with the help of Jonathan Moroze to raise awareness about the impacts of bullying.
These young people are setting a wonderful example for other young people in our community, and I commend their efforts to address this important issue.
I am firmly of the view that one of the smartest investments that governments can make is in education. We know that the very best investments we can make in education are, in fact, in the early years. Research clearly shows that 90 per cent of brain development occurs in the first five years of a child's life, and we know that universal access to preschool and kindergarten works. Research shows that students who access 15 hours of quality early childhood education in the year before school do better in the year 3 NAPLAN test and score better in year 4 maths, English and science. We have the evidence to support this.
Last year, the government refused to commit to funding in the budget and left parents and services hanging for months on end to know whether there would be ongoing federal funding for preschool and kindergarten. Parents were scrambling to find child care, and educators were facing real uncertainty about their work moving forward. Some services were even facing closure. The government refused to confirm funding and kept families and services waiting until September, and then dragged negotiations on until the end of the year.
Now, sadly, we find ourselves in a similar position. There is no money in the budget for preschool funding from 2016, and it looks like this whole saga of uncertainty could happen all over again. Since Labor started this program in 2009, we have seen very real and very large increases in attendance at preschool. Attendance of 15 hours or more at preschool was at just 12 per cent in 2008, but, because of federal preschool funding, the ABS reports that enrolment rates exceeded 82 per cent in 2013. That is an extraordinary increase.
But there is more work to do. We know that disadvantaged children, Indigenous children and children from non-English speaking backgrounds are still too underrepresented in our preschools. They are the very children who stand to benefit the most from this critical early education, but we cannot leave them on the sidelines.
If the Prime Minister is serious when he says that good government starts today, he will commit to ongoing federal funding for preschool and he will listen to the advice of the OECD, who just this week gave the Abbott government a direct warning about the importance of preschool. The OECD selected improving performance and equity in education as one of Australia's top priorities to boost our future economic growth. This is something that will actually benefit all of us and our economy. They highlighted enrolment rates in preschool as an integral factor in this, and the universal access initiative as the way to do it. Once again, I call on the Abbott government to end the uncertainty and fund ongoing support for preschool and kindergarten.
I had the chance to visit the Australian Trade College North Brisbane two weeks ago and meet the students and teachers there. The Australian Trade College is based in Scarborough. It offers year-11 and year-12 students the opportunity to complete senior schooling with hands-on experience that they can use to start a trade career.
The college has an above-average 80 per cent employment level for graduating students, which in simple terms means that 8 out of 10 students go on to get a job after completing school there. So if you are thinking about becoming an apprentice or getting involved with a trade, the Australian Trade College North Brisbane would be a great place to enrol. The students, the young men and women that I met there, are enrolled in a number of different courses—building, plumbing, mechanical and beauty courses—and they are all keen to learn and to do their best and excel at school, which is great to see. I would also like to acknowledge the teachers at the Australian Trade College, who have great practical experience in the workforce before becoming lecturers and teachers at the college. We know that teachers play a major part in children's education. I want to thank them for their contribution.
Coming from a blue-collar, tradie background, I recognise the importance of tradies. They use their skills to build and sustain our communities. In my electorate of Petrie the majority of the seat is made up of residential homes. There is a big demand now for tradespeople in my area, so I think those students have chosen a good field in which to study.
As a government, we have introduced the new Trade Support Loans to give young people who are entering a trade the same opportunity that university students have had for decades. I am pleased to say that in the last six months we have had 16,000 people access Trade Support Loans, which is fantastic news. That gives them a bit of a leg-up as they start their careers. I would like to say to all those students and the small businesses in the electorate of Petrie: if you are a sole trader or a partnership, consider expanding your business because there is a high demand for tradies in the area, and there are also lots of people looking for work. If you can put on an apprentice or put on some more staff that would be great for our local economy. It also gives the business owner an income-producing asset, which is very important. When they retire they will have their superannuation, but they will also have a business that will be worth something, which they will be able to sell. They will also be providing jobs locally.
It is great to be back in the federal parliament representing my community, the electorate of Lalor. It is terrific to be in this chamber, which is very special to me, with its refurbishments. I commend you on your work, Deputy Speaker.
According to our Prime Minister, good government began three days ago. So I come with a message from the people of Lalor: that is a relief, because the previous 17 months of the Abbott government has been a debacle. As one local put it, there has been a tsunami of uncertainty. Over the break, locals talked to me about their concerns. In fact, that is all they have wanted to talk about since the budget. They want to talk about uncertainty. Young people and families want to talk about higher education and the uncertainty about the cost of higher education in the future. Local housing support services want to talk to me about being unable to effectively plan to support those in our community who are really struggling to have a roof over their heads or food in their stomachs.
Also, people want to talk to me about Medicare. There are lots of questions after the reboot, then the captain's call and then wondering exactly what will happen to Medicare under this government. They want to talk about the age pension. Pensioners want to know about certainty for their future and how they are going to plan. They want to talk about child care and kindergarten funding. They want to talk about certainty in those areas, and they even want to talk about the uncertainty about the Prime Minister and how long Mr Abbott will remain leader of his party.
We were promised a united and grown up government. What we have instead is a shambolic attempt at government, a government that whilst in opposition blamed the government, and now that they are in government blames the opposition. It is a government that cannot have a conversation. It cannot listen, negotiate and, it seems, cannot learn. It wants to change, but needs to understand that change is more than a new speechwriter. Whilst the government puts on a facade of being grown up and successful, my community is continuing to reel from the cruel budget cuts and the uncertainty about the worst of its measures and what will be next.
My community knows that Labor managed a minority government by focusing on what was fair, and negotiating positive outcomes. They know that Labor will protect Medicare, education and the most vulnerable. They know that the Abbott government has broken promise after promise. As one local said to me on the weekend, 'Go back to see how the grown-ups are going, Joanne.' Well, I will be sad to report back that nothing has changed. The shambolic government continues. On behalf of my community, I ask those opposite: when will the good government we have been promised begin?
I rise today to outline an initiate I have commenced in my electorate of Lyne. In establishing this initiative my goal was to recognise and promote the involvement of youth in the community service activities of the community and reward ongoing contributions by students of high school age. The Federal Member's Community Services Award is a perpetual shield I have set up that has been given to each high school in the Lyne electorate, with the schools being free to elect a candidate they deem suitable. The successful recipient of this award is someone who has made a significant contribution to school life, as well as having participated in other volunteer activities and services within the community. I am extremely pleased with the reception this award has received amongst our local schools. I am equally impressed with the calibre of the 2014 award recipients. I had the pleasure of presenting a number of these awards to the students who are making an outstanding contribution, not only within their school communities but to the local community at large.
Kyra Yea from Wingham High School received an award, as were Shiloh Merigan at Newman College, Nathan Sommerville at Taree High School, Kristin Hess at Heritage Christian School, Caitlin Duggan at Port Macquarie High School, Megan Cooper at Westport High School, Emily Williams at Wauchope High School, Kyah Murphy at McKillop Senior College, Sophie Kingston at Gloucester High School, Emily Banks at St Clares High School, Abbie Bryant at Chatham High School and Imogen Deutscher at Camden Haven High School.
I would like to particularly mention the 2014 Wingham High School award recipient, Kyra Yea, who was instrumental in organising school fundraising activities and initiatives that resulted in a donation in excess of $7,000 to the children's ward at Manning Base Hospital. Additionally, this recipient has a long list of voluntary community work, a small sample of which includes the coordination of anti-bullying campaigns and organising blood donation drives. When asked how she felt on receiving the award, she said she felt like all her hard work had paid off. I can say with confidence that all the recipients of the 2014 Federal Member's Community Services Award will continue to make outstanding contributions to their communities.
It is a privilege to be able to assist the local schools of Lyne and to recognise the future cornerstones of our local community. I look forward to hearing of their future endeavours as many students move forward to the next stages of their lives.
On 27 February this year the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service will close its doors after 70 years of providing extraordinary assistance to those with injuries and disabilities who are wanting to return to work. The CRS began life as the Civilian Rehabilitation Scheme, opening its doors in 1941 as injured service personnel began to return home from Africa and the Middle East. The scheme was radically expanded post war, and provided rehabilitation services to tens of thousands of war veterans as well as helping thousands of invalid pensioners to find a future in the workforce. Its name changed to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Services in the 1950s, and as an agency it continued to evolve to provide first-class interdisciplinary services to its clients. It pioneered the case management practice that has become the gold standard in social service delivery. It also developed practices of community rehabilitation and third-stage rehabilitation. These concepts have been adopted by agencies operating in other areas of rehabilitation, such as the justice system and aged care. The CRS has provided services to both the Commonwealth and the private sector within the area of occupational health and safety, and motor vehicle and worker compensation rehabilitation management throughout Australia. In 2005-06 it reached a significant milestone wherein it placed over 10,000 job seekers into employment in one year.
The government has now disbanded this service and replaced it with a series of private providers. While we do not support the disintegration of this important service, my purpose here today is to pay tribute to the work of the many staff who, over the last 70 years, have committed themselves to the task of restoring to their clients the capacity to lead fulfilling, independent lives. A high proportion of the CRS staff were women with allied health qualifications and backgrounds—professions such as psychology, occupational therapy, social work, exercise physiology, as well as rehabilitation counsellors—who were represented across the CRS network. They were supported by administrative and management staff.
The private agencies with which CRS has been in competition for a number of years have a much smaller proportion of professional staff employed to deliver the services of vocational rehabilitation. No doubt they can operate at a lower cost; however, clients with complex needs run the risk of being rotated through agency and programs as a result.
Thank you, Valda Rose, for taking the time to draw this to my attention. I thank you and all your CRS colleagues for your dedication in providing services that have proved life-changing to so many Australians.
Can I say how refreshing it is to have some Labor members here this morning, using precious time in this chamber to highlight some great achievements in their electorates, rather than engaging in party political point scoring. In that vein, can I say what a great honour it was a week ago to open stage 1 of the world-class, purpose-built Blue Derby mountain bike trails in my electorate of Bass. There were literally hundreds of mountain bike enthusiasts in attendance to open these new trails, which put Derby and Northern Tasmania on the map as an international mountain bike tourism destination.
This is not a big place. Derby is a small town about an hour or so north-east of Launceston, where about 200 people live. It has fast become one of the biggest developing mountain bike regions in Australia, and those interested in mountain biking now have the option of landing in Launceston and riding around the Trevallyn trails in Launceston. Then there are the Hollybank mountain bike trails, and now we have the Blue Derby mountain bike trails in some of the most forested areas of this wondrous region. What they get is rugged hillsides and valleys and rockfalls, and the sorts of things that have put places like Fruita in Colorado on the international map. This will bring new dynamism into this community, as well as new money, assisting in the region's economic revitalisation.
Approximately 25,000 people come to Tasmania each year with some form of cycling in mind, and as the patron of cycling in Tasmania, I found it wonderful to see these trails open with such fanfare a week ago. It is anticipated that some 10,000 to 15,000 visitors will come and ride the trails at Derby by 2017. We have provided yet another reason to make Northern Tasmania your entry point to our state. Deputy Speaker, when you say 'Tasmania' to people they often think about Hobart, Salamanca, Port Arthur and Mona. But now they have reasons to land in Launceston and go to Barnbougle and play on the 11th best golf course in the world. They can go to places like the Derby and Blue Tier mountain bike trails, where the next two Australian championships are going to be held, and ride on an Olympic standard trail. They can see the beautiful beaches around Bridport. They can see Launceston's Cataract Gorge. They can come for culture and heritage tourism. I ran into a lady from Germany recentlywho had travelled specifically to photograph our art deco and heritage buildings in Launceston.
What we are trying to do, as I said, is give people more reasons to make Northern Tasmania their entry point to the state. I encourage visitors to come to the new trails and enjoy the very best that Northern Tasmania has to offer.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
As a representative from Western Australia, a place famous for its natural environmental riches, its beautiful beaches and rivers, tall tree forests and woodlands, gorges and desert landscapes, I am always keen to remind people that WA is also a place rich in distinctive arts and cultural activity. This is a good time to make that point, because February is the month when culture and the arts in Western Australia reaches a peak, with the Fringe World Festival and the Perth International Arts Festival delivering local, national and international acts and events. Indeed, this weekend Perth CBD and foreshore will be a city-sized stage for the Giants—a quite extraordinary public performance and art phenomenon involving massive, exquisite puppets and a small army as their entourage. While in Fremantle, we have already enjoyed a range of Fringe Art Festival events under the banner of Freo Royale, which commenced last Wednesday.
I know there are many on this side of the House who are proud that under the Labor government that the then Minister for the Arts, Simon Crean, launched the first national arts and cultural policy in almost two decades—a policy reinforced with $235 million in new funding. I am glad that the policy had as it first imperative to recognise, respect and celebrate the centrality of Aboriginal and Torres Islander cultures. The policy took as its premise the idea that government, the private sector and the wider community should invest and be involved in the arts because there are such enormous social, cultural and economic dividends to be had from doing so.
Speaking of investing in the arts, I am conscious that the National Opera Review is currently occurring through the expert stewardship of Dr Helen Nugent. I hope this process will provide government with all the advice and options it needs to grapple with some problems that we already recognise. While there will inevitably be consideration of the 'how', I cannot imagine that there will be much dispute about the 'what' in terms of the need for higher and more secure base funding and also in terms of better indexation of funding between review periods.
Opera and orchestras represent the zenith of organised, sophisticated, highest quality performing arts and musicianship—much as some might argue submarines represent the zenith of complex, coordinated manufacturing endeavour. That is not to make a relative music arts judgement about orchestras as opposed to, say, Paul Kelly, the Hilltop Hoods or a jazz quartet but simply to acknowledge that the scale and aggregated musical expertise of an orchestra is in a category of its own.
I am a proud supporter of the Fremantle Chamber Orchestra because I believe the continued existence of orchestras is structurally necessary in order to support the encouragement and development of all musicians to the highest standard, and so their continued good health is an essential part of a broad framework that produces talented musical performers of every kind—the vast majority of whom will not ultimately practice their skill or follow their interest in either of these formats but might become a music teacher or be taught by that teacher, and so it goes. Like building submarines or having a space program, the support for human endeavour at its most complex and finely tuned flows out into the entire field of that endeavour. I am concerned that if there is not a better system put in place for secure and properly reviewed and indexed funding, operas and orchestras will continue to exist in a state of relative fragility. They will become less active and more risk averse. They will be less attractive to the most talented and ambitious musicians—in short, they will be in a dangerous spiral.
In the broader context of culture and the arts, I love the Albert Einstein quote 'The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant'. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift. We cannot allow that to be the case. We must hold onto truth that a creative society is necessarily a more innovative and productive society. It is no accident, in my view, that while there are many artists, writers and musicians living in Fremantle there are also many inventors.
There are some 531,000 people working the creative industries in Australia—more than half a million people; almost five per cent of the workforce—and the sector's growth is almost that of the workforce as a whole. Creativity and innovation are what will power our state and our nation's future, so we need to tap into the passion and imagination that young people have innately and nurture it in our homes, in our schools, in our businesses and of course in the arts. That is why it is incredibly important that both government and the wider society at all levels invest in the arts—because there are enormous, cultural and economic dividends in doing so.
In the end, it is culture that defines us. We are home to the oldest living culture on earth and we have welcomed a great diversity of cultures to share this land. When giants walk the earth in Western Australia this weekend in a performance that I have no doubt will provoke wonder, excitement and even a kind of sublime bewilderment for an audience that may reach one million people, it will be an opportunity to reflect on Western Australia's role as a home and host to high-quality culture and the arts.
The recent state election in Queensland may see a Labor government form in Queensland over the next few days. If Anna Palaszczuk does have the confidence of the parliament to be able to form parliament I have grave fears for the future of Queensland. It will be disastrous for the agricultural sector and rural communities right across Queensland, including my electorate of Maranoa.
The LNP had introduced some very sensible reforms and was on track to bring the budget back into the black and, as a result of that, inevitably we would see Queensland's AAA credit rating restored. But I do not see any evidence of that insight should the Labor Party form a government in Queensland, because it will not be a Labor government; it will be a Labor-Green government in Queensland. It was the Greens who gave Labor preferences throughout Queensland. Anna Palaszczuk ran a Green agenda throughout the campaign, and the Greens will be seeking a dividend from the new Premier should she be Premier Anna Palaszczuk in the next few days.
I have to say that some of the reforms that were put in place by the LNP, included sensible vegetation management laws in Queensland. The people on the land respect the land. They are the custodians of the land for generations to come. But what we saw under the Labor government, under Beattie, under Bligh, and under the late Premier Goss—who was advised, I might say, by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as his adviser—draconian land laws in relation to water management and also vegetation management. They actually had tree police who would go around and inspect from the air—from Google Earth—people's operations and what they were doing on their land. They introduced retrospective legislation so that they could go and prosecute landholders and treat them as criminals. It was outrageous. Those laws were changed, which is sensible. I feel very sad that those laws may once again be on the statute books in Queensland.
The Queensland Labor Party, should they form government, does not have a mandate. They have 44 seats. They do not have a majority, and they would be relying on an Independent to give them a single seat majority to govern.
Will the Labor Party in Queensland continue with the drought policy introduced by the LNP? We know what happened down here. When we came to government there was no drought policy. They did not care about the impact of extended drought. In my electorate in north-west Queensland we have had the worst drought since Federation, and it is still in serious drought officially. By any record—by Bureau of Meteorology records—it has been the worst drought we have seen. The LNP put $100 million into drought policy to assist landholders to get through this worst drought. Will that, as their records show, be repealed? Will they continue with a drought policy?
What about the Great Artesian Basin sustainability initiative—the bore capping program?
Under Wayne Swan, the former Treasurer in the Labor government, they gutted that. They ended that very successful program, introduced by John Howard and John Anderson, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister when we were in government. We have put the money back on the table to restart that GABSI program. Should Annastacia Palaszczuk become the next premier, will Labor commit to that? I call on her to make sure that they commit and put their money on the table to match the Commonwealth money to see that program re-established. It is the greatest water-saving environmental program that we could have. The Great Artesian Basin provides water for so many communities in Western Queensland and across South Australia and western New South Wales. So I call on them, if they do form government, to put their money on the table and not to do what we saw down here in Canberra.
Country racing, under years and years of Labor, was gutted. But it is back on the agenda. Country racing is part of the social fabric of many of our rural communities. Will they continue to support it?
Then there is the Warrego Highway in my electorate. Anyone who has driven on the Warrego Highway since the LNP has been in government knows that, with federal funding, it has been upgraded from Charleville through to Brisbane with more passing lanes. It is now a highway; before, it was nothing more than a rabbit track. What will happen to the planned Dalby South State School lights on the Warrego Highway? Will they proceed? What about the very dangerous railway crossing at Chinchilla that the LNP committed to upgrade? We now see type 2 road trains coming from Western Queensland right through to Roma. They were not there in the past under Labor. I call on this new Labor government to commit to those initiatives.
There is something really special about my home in Parramatta. People who move into the area often say after a few months that, 'It gets under your skin like very few places do.' And it does. You do not say you live in Sydney if you live in Parramatta; you say you live in Parramatta. It has an extraordinary sense of place. Perhaps that comes from the same factors that drew the Dharug nation to choose Parramatta as its meeting place every year. Perhaps it is its history. Nearly everything you learn in school about what happened in the early colonial years actually happened in Parramatta, including the Rum Rebellion. Perhaps it is the extraordinary diversity of the place and its energy. But, whatever it is, when you spend time in Parramatta you know where you are. It is a place in its own right. It has an extraordinary sense of place.
But, for those of us who know it really well, it is not what you see which is the great thing about Parramatta. What is visible is extraordinary: incredible energy in its business, language and food diversity. But the great thing is actually the energy that sits underneath. My community speaks every language. It knows every country. It knows every culture. We have businesses that export everything from toilets to dietary supplements to China and India. We have an incredible number of services that we are already exporting on a large scale to some of the major growing powerhouses of the region. It is this energy that sits underneath, this innovation, these ideas that come forth when new business start that we in Parramatta refer to as the berg. It is not the tip of Parramatta—as impressive as that is—that is the great thing; it is this extraordinary energy and potential that sits underneath.
When I look at it from my position as a member of parliament, the thing that I regret most about my community is that that berg, that incredible level of energy, is not always visible to others in the community. It is difficult for one small start-up business to see the possible networks and collaboration partners in the community. It is a lack of a mirror, if you like, for this wonderful energetic part of Parramatta to see itself and see others so that they can collaborate and grow stronger together. There is much to be done on just that in Parramatta.
Recently, I started making very small moves by forming a Go Local campaign that operated through November and December. We are now running a Go Local campaign for Valentine's Day, encouraging people to do what we all need to do to grow stronger communities, which is to spend our money locally. We know that when you spend your money locally it circulates locally. If you spend in small businesses the money circulates more; it has three times more impact on the economy than if you spend in a large chain where the money very quickly flows out of the community to a head office or a supplier elsewhere. Small businesses tend to use local suppliers, and so the money circulates locally. It is a much more powerful use of your purchasing power if you do that.
It is extraordinary to hear the ideas that have come forward since I have done this very small thing. I want to run through some of them, because I want to share them with my community as well. One of my local bike shops said: 'There are 13 gyms in Parramatta and four bike shops. Why don't we have a Parramatta corporate challenge, so that all those sporting businesses can encourage people to come into their business and get fit for the corporate challenge?' It is a great idea. It needs someone to pick it up, but it is a great idea. Just two days ago, someone else talked to me about the extraordinary food that we have in Parramatta—we have some of the best provedores around; in fact, people from the North Shore come to Parramatta for food safaris because of the quality of our food. This person pointed out that if you want chilli bhaji, which are chickpea battered chillies that are deep-fried—talk to the Telugu Association if you want to know what they are—you cannot get them in Parramatta; you have to go up the train line, because they are unique to Pendle Hill. Every station on the train line has a shopping centre which now has a unique food variety because of the community that lives around it. If you want African, you go to Merrylands, but if you particularly want Somali, you have to go to Guildford. If you want Telugu, you have to go to Pendle Hill; if you want Gujarati, you go to Harris Park. All the way along the train line we have these wonderful places where, with proper networking, we have a product which is far more valuable than its individual parts, and cooperation between businesses is what we need to bring that out. I encourage all my local businesses to get into the Go Local campaign. It is worth doing. We can grow much stronger together.
I rise today to commend the exceptional work that the Childhood Cancer Support group, based in the electorate of Brisbane, does for children undergoing oncology treatment, and the ongoing support they offer to family members. Based in Bramston Terrace, Herston, in the heart of my electorate. Childhood Cancer Support provides a place to call home for families with children undergoing long-term treatment plans. CCS was established in 1975. It is a not-for-profit organisation with a focus on providing practical and realistic support for families. There are currently four properties on Bramston Terrace, in Herston's medical precinct, which provide families, including siblings and grandparents, with privacy and self-sufficiency during treatment. I can only imagine how much more difficult facing a long-term treatment plan would be if you had to live out of a hotel room. CCS offers families a place to call home during these particularly and incredibly stressful times.
Over the years, thousands of families from Queensland have been assisted by the team at CCS, and their children have received treatment in Brisbane. A key focus of CCS is to provide Australian families, including those from regional areas, with access to support services to help them manage the impact of childhood cancer. These support services include financial assistance and a number of respite programs, which include recreational activities, school holiday programs, family barbecues and a number of emotional support services to help build a sense of community. One new initiative offered by CCS is a Monday-to-Friday transport service to help the families transit to Lady Cilento Children's Hospital in South Brisbane. On a day-to-day basis, we take for granted simple tasks like running errands but, when you are caring for a child with cancer, it is the small tasks that I am sure are the very hardest to tackle. CCS seeks to remove the emotional and financial stress of living away from home by sticking to a no-cost policy.
The demand for accommodation at Bramston Terrace units is currently so high that all the units are occupied for most of the year, and there is a waiting list of anywhere between six and 10 families at any given time. CCS services are highly sought after, and they have had an increase in facilities as well. I was delighted to meet CCS General Manager, Lisa Godier, and board member, Josie Thomson in my electorate office last week to hear of the future of CCS; to hear of their opportunities to provide for more families, and about some of the exciting developments they have planned. Under their plan for 2015-16, there will be a focus on a second campus being sought closer to the new Lady Cilento Children's Hospital in South Brisbane. This will provide more families with the opportunity to be under one roof as their child undergoes treatment.
As a charitable organisation, CCS relies on donations and support from a number of corporate sponsors and corporate events. For example, Talk Like a Pirate Day was held on 19 September 2014, and they raised more than $30,000. These events helped raise vital funds and awareness required to increase accommodation and services provided by CCS. CCS is an invaluable addition to the cancer support service network through providing families with community care. It understands that childhood cancer is a battle that cannot be fought alone.
This year will be a very important year for CCS. They will have provided some 40 years of service to families in Brisbane, and I commend them for the incredible work they have been doing on behalf of all of those families. They truly are an inspirational organisation, based in my electorate. I look forward to working with them, particularly to help them realise their dreams of helping to build that second facility. Hopefully, when a new government is instated in Queensland it will help them deal with some of the transport issues they raised with me in my office last week. I commend the word of all involved in this great organisation.
Every year I conduct the Shortland awards, and last year was no different. I give awards for health and disability, education, to a junior under the age of 17, youths between 18 and 25, seniors, environment, emergency management, long-term commitment to community, volunteering, community group of the year and volunteer of the year.
Last year the health and disability award nominees were Allan Kay, who has been involved with disabled children; George Sinclair, riding for the disabled; Val Austin, for providing holiday care for young people; Jordan Strong, who has been a volunteer with children for seven years; and the winner was Shauna Abrahamson, who was nominated by Redhead Surf Life Saving Club for her work as director of education at the club.
For the junior volunteer of the year award we had Jackson Harvey, who was given an encouragement award for his work at Belmont High School; Gemma Johnstone, who was involved in the first Budgewoi-San Remo Neighbourhood Centre; and Samantha Hallett, who was involved with Caves Beach Surf Life Saving Club, for all the work she had done there. Gemma and Samantha were joint winners.
In the youth volunteer of the year award we had Peter Wilson, who was vice-captain of Swansea High School and was involved with Lake Macquarie Soccer Referees Association; and Stef Brown, nominated by the Globe Church, for work as a volunteer swimmer for the Special Olympics. The winner was James Callender, who had been a surf life saving club member since he had joined the nippers at five years of age. He has done a lot of work in leadership and mentoring in a number of areas. He is a very positive role model.
Senior volunteer of the year we have Nance Adams, who has previously won the Shortland award and has been involved in numerous volunteer groups in the electorate; Stan Ostle, South Beach Rugby Union, John Loss, who has been involved with Meals on Wheels at Swansea; Elizabeth Gibson, who was nominated by Probus for the work she has done at Hunter Sports High School; Rob Diamond, who has volunteered with Marine Rescue; Gwen Curry, who has been volunteering in aged care with Whiddon Homes; and Lin Clee, who since 2001 has been volunteering with the Salvation Army. The seniors winner was Mavis Kannar, who joined Swansea RSL Women's Auxiliary in 1956. She is still involved, but she is 94 years old. The joint winner was Allan Lumsdaine, who has been involved with the Globe Church prison program, and also with helping kids at Dudley Primary School.
The environment award went to John Le Messurier. He has been involved in so many environmental activities in Lake Macquarie. Adam Rees was one of the nominees for the emergency awards, as was David English, who was successful for his work during the fires last year. Other nominees included Elaine Shepherd, from Redhead library; Neil Bowd, for his enormous amount of work in Redhead; Betty Gladdish, for her work with the Whiddon Group; and Coral Burnham, from Mannering Park Progress Association—who was the winner. She has done an enormous amount of work in the community.
The Community Group of the Year nominees were Catherine Hill Bay IRB Rescue, Charlestown Caring Group, Mannering Park Progress Association and Belmont Neighbourhood Centre, which was the winner. It has a habitation community garden, a Men’s Shed and Playstations and is involved in a lot of community activities in the area.
Nominees for Volunteer of the Year were Jenny Benson from Mannering Park, for her work at the school and the P? Collette Delore for the Southern Beaches Rugby Union and her work at the club over 20 years; Karen Devlin, for her work with the learning assistance program; Leigh Foran, a volunteer with Charlestown Meals on Wheels; Gareth Lewis, from Swansea Meals on Wheels; Pam Slade, from Buff Point; Andrew Whitbourne, from Mannering Park Precinct Committee; Rob Wilkinson, from Charlestown Caring Group; Darren Williams from Catherine Hill Bay; and Carol Ryan from Globe Church. But the winner was Kerry Groves from Lake Haven for her activities with San Remo Neighbourhood Centre. She is a legend in the area and has done enormous work. I seek leave to table this list of names.
Leave granted.
I rise to speak on the Riverland and Mallee Vocational Awards, hosted by the Rotary Club of Berri, which I was delighted to attend on Friday last at the Berri Hotel in my electorate. The awards were developed in 1982. They have an esteemed history and they are highly regarded in my community, the state and the nation. They were developed by the Rotary Club of Renmark as a way of recognising the outstanding achievements of young apprentices in the Riverland and Mallee. In 1991, the awards expanded to recognise the growing significance of traineeships and in 2001 the awards developed even further by presenting an award to the most outstanding vocational education training student from the Riverland's many high-quality high schools.
Each year, the club celebrates the achievements of young people from the Riverland and Mallee region. The Riverland and Mallee Vocational Awards are the largest of their kind in regional Australia, which is a fantastic achievement and underscores not only the hard work of the apprentices, trainees and students but also the dedication of the Rotary Club members and employers in the district. The awards recognise the success, endeavour and enthusiasm of young outstanding members of the Riverland and Mallee community.
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the winners but before I do I would say to all of the finalists that it is trite to say but you were all winners by virtue of your nomination as finalists to these esteemed awards. This year's winners included Fahri Somuncu. He was the winner of the Building and Construction Industry Award. Fahri is an apprentice with Hotondo Homes in the Riverland, where he is considered a leader by his peers. Winning the Electrical Industry Award was James Horvat. James is an electrical apprentice with Yates Electrical Services and demonstrates an outstanding work ethic and quality of workmanship.
Joshua Voigt was the winner of the Engineering Industry Award. He was also a runner up in the Apprentice of the Year Award. Joshua is an apprentice engineer with SA Water Engineering Technologies and demonstrates a high level of skill and dedication in his trade. Kara Bottrell not only was the winner of the Hairdressing Industry Award but also took out the top and coveted prize of Apprentice of the Year. Kara has become an indispensable member of Cindy's Hair and Beauty in the Riverland where she works as an apprentice hairdresser. She is a young lady with incredible confidence and energy, which was on display at the gala event. Madeline Ziegler was the winner of the Vocational Education and Training Student of the Year. Madeline is studying a Certificate III in Aged Care and Disability. Ellie Gillard was runner-up for the Vocational Education and Training Student of the Year. Ellie is undertaking a Certificate III in Children's Services whilst completing Year 12 at Loxton High School. Sharna Linke was runner-up for the Vocational Education and Training Student of the Year. Sharna is studying a Diploma in Children's Services whilst studying at Waikerie High School.
Klaudia Gregurec was the joint winner, with Holly Modra, of the Australian School-based Trainee of the Year. Klaudia completed her Certificate Ill in Hospitality whilst studying Year 12 and working at the Renmark Hotel. She mentors young people in the industry. Holly Modra is studying her Diploma in Children's Services while completing year 12 and working part-time with Mallee COGS. She hopes to one day work overseas in a kindergarten orphanage. Joanna Platten was runner-up for Australian School-based Trainee of the Year. She undertook a Certificate Ill in Business Administration whilst completing year 12. Benjamin Pilgrim was the winner of the Australian School-based Apprentice of the Year. Roy Grenfell was runner-up for Trainee of the Year. Louise Beech was the joint winner, with Emily Cocks, of Trainee of the Year and works with Hotondo Homes. Emily Cocks works at the Renmark Hotel as a hospitality trainee. Mark Cameron was winner of the Automotive Industry Award. He is a panel beater with Waikerie Crash who is realizing his passion for cars and the automotive industry. I congratulate each of this year's winners and I wish them every success with their future endeavours. The people of Barker can be confident, as can the nation, that we are in good hands.
This is the week that the house of cards that is the Abbott government has collapsed. It started with a public blue; it ended with a failed coup. And now we are in policy chaos: not just the submarines, not just the budget, but health care—and that is what I am going to focus on. The government is flailing around. It does not seem that anyone is really in charge. After a failed leadership challenge led by a brazen and at times principled group of backbenchers, there is no alternative candidate. So who knows who is in charge of the show? If you look at the cabinet, instead of talking to each other they are out there talking to the media, and they are looking over their shoulders all the time to work out who the next prime minister is going to be. It would be funny if it was not so important.
We have no budget strategy and no plan for health. In fact, if you look at the health area, we have had four plans for health in the last three months. In the last two years, we have had five plans for the health system—because the coalition went into the last election promising no changes to Medicare. Then we had the GP tax mark 1 foisted upon the Australian public immediately on the announcement of the budget. After promising they would not do it, they threatened to slug patients with a $7 co-payment—a GP tax just to visit their doctor—and to freeze Medicare rebates. When it became clear that the health minister just did not have support out in the community—let alone in his backroom—to push through this massive change to Medicare, they dumped it. We were then introduced to the GP tax mark 2 and, like many sequels—we all remember that Jaws 2 was not as good as Jaws 1—the GP tax mark 2 was a lot worse than the GP tax mark 1: in addition to the $5 slugging for the GP tax, people were also going to have a $20 cut to the GP rebate for short GP consultations. Is it any wonder that the public—and the medical practitioners—were up in arms? In fact, for a short time in the new year, GP surgeries were turned into a protest zone.
It is little wonder that the new and perhaps unfortunate receiver of the hospital pass, the new health minister, the member for Farrer, decided to interrupt the cricket season by announcing that the GP tax mark 2 was dumped—or at least in part, because the freeze on Medicare rebates is still in existence. This means that the amount of money we get back in our pocket after visiting the doctor is going to decrease over the period between now and 2018.
The fact is that we do not know what the health policy of the government was yesterday, what it is today, or even what it will be tomorrow, because we had the magnificent spectacle yesterday of senior members of the executive out there on the airwaves contradicting each other. We had the member for Aston, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, on the air saying that the GP tax, and in fact the whole plan, had been dumped, and that a commitment had been given to the party room that the GP tax had been dumped. He was not on his own; we had that bloke who pulled the pin on the political hand grenade, the member for Cowan, on Sky Newswho could forget that episode?—making the announcement that he had received a promise from the Prime Minister in the party room that the GP tax was off, only then to have a phone call through to the Sky News studio, with the spectacle of David Speers announcing what the government policy was on national television. Yesterday, the member for Aston was saying one thing and then having to go back on the record and correct it. Meanwhile, one of his colleagues, another parliamentary secretary, Kelly O'Dwyer, was out there contradicting the policy as well. So, after four policies in three months—five in two years—we are left without a health policy. But the health minister assures us that the GP tax, the co-payments and the Medicare rebate freezes are still on the table.
I encourage the emboldened backbench to take a Taylor-Swift-like message to the minister and to the Prime Minister: when it comes to the GP tax, they ought to just shake it off and start again.
I rise to update the House on an infrastructure project in the electorate of Swan. I was pleased to recently join with the federal Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Jamie Briggs; the member for Hasluck, Ken Wyatt; and my state government colleagues the Minister for Transport, Dean Nalder, and the member for Belmont, Glenys Godfrey, to announce how this coalition government's efforts to support Perth's infrastructure gateway are not only progressing but are now six months ahead of schedule.
The Swan electorate, and in particular the Kewdale-Welshpool industrial hub, will significantly capitalise from the federal and Western Australian governments' largest ever road infrastructure investment in my home state, particularly through the key local road modifications in Kewdale to accommodate the Leach Highway upgrade. Overall, the Australian government has committed $676 million, and the WA state government has committed $310 million under the Gateway WA project, to alleviate congestion for Perth's road users.
I am also very pleased to inform the House that just last month the project surpassed its 60 per cent completion phase, with final completion now projected to be mid-2016. This project will also go hand-in-hand with my previously successful campaign to see the Great Eastern Highway, which runs through the electorate of Swan, upgraded. This was a very important project for Perth's metropolitan region, as our highway acts as our main thoroughfare from the Perth Airport to the CBD, and is also their gateway to the city. As the former member for Swan yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you understand the value, and now enjoy travelling on the Great Eastern Highway upgrade as you head over to Canberra.
We are a government that ensures its policies and projects are correctly funded and correctly managed, and in the case of the Gateway WA project I am therefore pleased to update members that not only is this project six months ahead of schedule, it is also ahead of budget—something I am sure those opposite still dream of accomplishing in just one instance. This is due to a range of factors across the whole project, including favourable site conditions, no major disruptions, innovations in construction, effective project management and effective traffic management. With the support of the federal government, this has allowed the state government to shift $45 million in funding across to its Roe and Berkshire interchange project, increasing the amount of interchanges now being built to six. The scope of the Gateway WA project includes the construction and upgrade of five main interchanges, widening Tonkin Highway to six lanes between the Great Eastern Highway and Roe Highway and upgrading Leach Highway between Tonkin Highway and Orrong Road to the expressway standard.
Last year, important construction milestones were also achieved, including the first bridge-beam installation for the Tonkin Highway-Leach Highway interchange. Those members who have visited Perth will know that for the past decade traffic congestion around Perth Airport and these industrial hubs has been a key issue for local residents trying to get from A to B—let alone for businesses who are trying to develop an effective productivity model.
Members on this side of the House would also know that having an effective productivity model can make or break a business in today's harsh economic climate. That is why projects such as these are so important. They assist a range of industries to remain competitive, both domestically and internationally, when applicable. This is particularly important for Western Australia's freight industry, which is largely based in Kewdale and Welshpool in my electorate of Swan. For industries such as these, traffic congestion can mean less productivity and therefore less profit.
That is why I am also pleased to inform the House that in conjunction with the Gateway WA project, which is now 60 per cent complete, this coalition government and the WA state liberal government are also rolling out the $1.6 billion Perth Freight Link project through the metropolitan network to Perth's other industrial hub located at Fremantle Ports.
Although alleviating traffic congestion has been the key focus of this project, it is also important to note the level of support it is directly providing for Western Australian businesses. To date, the Gateway WA project alone has created more than 1,300 construction jobs, while the majority of works have been undertaken by more than 600 Western Australian businesses. The government has awarded contracts worth approximately $400 million and has engaged suppliers for the provision of goods worth approximately $24 million, creating a much needed boost to the Western Australian economy.
This would not be possible without the hard work and dedication of these 1,300 Western Australian contractors. I congratulate them for their efforts in ensuring this project is of a first-class standard, with safety always in mind for workers and road users. I look forward to witnessing the Gateway WA and Perth Freight Link projects coming to fruition over the coming years and to the positive effects they will have on the Perth metropolitan region, particularly for the residents and businesses in my electorate of Swan.
I rise today to speak about my recent visit to Cambodia as part of a joint Australia-United States delegation organised by CARE US and CARE Australia. It was to see, first-hand, the meaningful impact Australian foreign-aid programs are having on the lives of Cambodians. Today, however, I find myself unable to talk about the great things our aid funding is achieving in Cambodia without lamenting the extraordinary and astonishing cuts this government has made to our foreign aid budget.
Under the former Labor government, expenditure in both dollar amounts and as a percentage of gross national income continued to grow. Under this government, Australia will spend a measly 22c in every $100 of our gross national income on foreign aid. This is the lowest proportion since the Whitlam government. I cannot help but agree with World Vision chief Tim Costello, who has branded these aid cuts as 'immoral'. I agree with him that they do not reflect our values as a nation.
I have now seen first-hand the emancipating effect our foreign aid has as well as the desperate need to do more in this area. Our foreign aid is helping millions of the world's poor to actively create better lives for themselves and their families through education, micro-loans, disease prevention and many other innovative programs.
I was particularly pleased to see the impact Australian aid has on the lives of women and children in these countries. I saw firsthand in Cambodia that women and children are much more likely to be in need of the programs our foreign aid money funds. My visit had a particular emphasis on programs that aim to promote equal opportunities for all children, which means supporting and promoting young women and girls, particularly in the areas of maternal child health and violence against women.
The emphasis on female participation in society is one of the most important factors in international development. It is generally acknowledged that the easiest way to lift the metaphorical flaw in developing societies is to promote the empowerment of women in these communities. In Cambodia, our aid money goes to empowering women through educational and financial literacy programs. They are also being educated about sexual, reproductive and maternal health as well as HIV-AIDS prevention. Giving women financial liberation and control over their productive systems is essential to female empowerment and a society's prosperity.
Foreign aid helps in other areas too. Thanks to Australia's foreign aid money, polio has been wiped out from the Pacific. Over 1.5 million children have been immunised against polio and measles in Papua New Guinea alone. We should be clear: Australian aid works. However, this government has cut the foreign aid budget by over $11 billion, which is equivalent to 30 per cent of the previous budget. A cut of this magnitude has crippling effects. It would have crippling effects on any department's ability to provide services. The government's $11 billion cut to foreign aid could mean that 1.4 million children could be born without a birth attendant; 2.2 million children may not get to enrol in a school; 3.7 children may not be vaccinated; 4.7 million people may not get access to safe drinking water; and 21.9 million people in emergency situations could go unassisted.
Last night, the Minister for Foreign Affairs released a report into the assessment of Australia's foreign aid entitled Performance of Australian Aid, 2013-14 and asserted:
I have set an ambitious target of 80 per cent of programs to effectively address gender equality issues and have strengthened the criteria for gender assessments. A new strategy to combat challenges in this area will be implemented this year to achieve this outcome.
Throughout the report, however, there is no mention of the number of girls who will no longer be able to receive an education as a result of this government's cut to the foreign aid budget. Similarly, there is no mention of the number of young girls who will go without vaccines. Women and young girls will undoubtedly be the biggest losers when it comes to this government's foreign aid cuts. It is one thing to put out a shiny new pamphlet highlighting the work that we are doing for women and girls in the fight for gender equality today, but the question we are left with is: what will be the situation that faces them tomorrow?
Cuts to foreign aid of over a billion dollars a year is equivalent to removing our aid programs in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia overnight. Imagine the damage this would do in these countries. Also imagine the damage it would do to our relationships with partner nations who work with us to deliver programs in these areas. Cambodia is an example of how sustainable and meaningful aid programs can be emancipatory for citizens. We have increased our foreign aid to Cambodia over recent years—and it shows. We have seen the strides forward that are possible, especially in the case of the empowerment of women and children.
I am proud of the exceptional work that our dedicated volunteers and aid workers are doing on the ground. They do it not because it pays well or because it leads to a lucrative career or to public accolade; they do it because of their shared humanity and sense of duty. It frightens me to think of what could happen to the communities of people that I met if these aid workers are forced to pack up and go home. I know in many other countries in our region and throughout the world that that is exactly what these foreign aid cuts have done. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Women to consult with the experts and to heed the warning. (Time expired)
Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.
Australia Day is celebrated in our communities across the nation with a lot of joy, because it is a day where we acknowledge great community members. I would like to go through some of the wonderful achievements and acknowledgements that occurred in my community on Australia Day.
Firstly, we had a number of OAM recipients, including Stan Gilchrist of Lismore, who is Adam Gilchrist's father, for his service to many charities and sporting bodies in our community; Edna Fuller of Casino for services to the community from the Girl Guides to QUOTA and the Casino Hospital auxiliary and many others; Barry Nash of Ballina for services to veterans and their families and to a lot of other community events in Ballina; Sister Anne Gallagher for decades of dedication to the Teaching of Music at McLean Convent; Bob Harbord of the Coutts Crossing, a Vietnam veteran, who is dedicated to helping returned Vietnam veterans. He is also the Coutts Crossing Rural Fire Service senior deputy.
Also there was a special emergency service award to Patricia Crowe who got an award for more than 50 years of service in the SES—what a wonderful achievement that is.
I would just like to go through the five LGA areas and some of the other awards. Richmond Valley Council: Robyn Spruce and Rhonda O'Connell were both given the joint Citizen of the Year; Michael Pontefract, Volunteer of the Year; Todd Johnson, Sportsperson of the Year; and Maddison Morrissey, Young Sportsperson of the Year—what a wonderful tennis player.
Ballina council: Citizen of the Year, Mary O'Brien; and Young Citizen of the Year, Rachel Hughes. There were four Senior Citizens of the Year: Ian Duncan; Mike Rushby; Margaret Ryan; and Wally Mulgrave—they have all done great work. Wally has lost his legs but not his spirit. He is an inspiration to those living with diabetes. Margaret is a tireless worker with Alstonville residents. Mike is a journalist and does a lot for the people of Wardell; and Ian is a motivating force behind the Newrybar Hall renovations. Volunteer of the Year was Robyn Mostyn. Arts and Culture was Karen Rantissi—Karen does a wonderful job at Empire Vale Public School. I have been there and visited her and seen the wonderful work that she does. The Sports Team of the Year were the Ballina Seagulls, the first-grade rugby league team that has won the Northern Rivers Rugby League competition for the last two consecutive years, which was a great effort. Sports administrator was Geoff Jacobs for his work at the Ballina Bears Cricket Club; Young Sportsperson of the Year was Joshua Brown who is a great surf lifesaver and has won many medals. The Community Event of the Year was Skullcandy Oz Grom Open, which is a junior surfing competition and was a great success.
Kyogle Council: Citizen of the Year was Brian Hoffman whose work in the SES has been well noted in that great community. Young Citizen of the Year was Tara Byrne, a former Kyogle High School captain who has since undertaken a volunteer role with children in Cambodia. Lifetime Achievement was Meg Rundle—I spoke to Meg the other day—who is 98-years-old and still doing wonderful work with the Kyogle Writers Group by contributing her memories of almost of 100 years of living in Kyogle. Lifetime Achievement was Sister Monica,
a music teacher for many years who has made a contribution to the local parish when it was without a resident priest. Contribution to Sport over 18 was Simon Tough who works for the local footy club. Contribution to Sport under 18 was Arlo Hook who is a fantastic soccer and futsal player and has recently signed up to a rep side. Contribution to Community Programs and Activities was Christopher Olive of the Kyogle SES for more than 30 years. Contribution to Business was Scarborough's Shoes and Fashion, a great local business in Kyogle. Contribution to Enhancing Children's Participation in Community Life was Peter Fish. Contribution to Creative Industries was Ruth Tsitimbinis, who has done great work with the Community Arts Gallery.
The Clarence Valley Citizen of the Year was Greg Butcher who formed a fantastic orchestra last year. Young Citizen of the Year was Breanna Ryan who is a wonderful young lady. Community achievement was Live Prawn Productions. Local Hero was Esther Smith.
Lismore City Council Citizen of the Year was Dr Austin Curtin, a wonderful man in our region who is also in the Army Reserve. Young Citizen of the Year was Jacob Botha. The Aboriginal Citizen of the Year was Reverend Dorothy Harris-Gordon, Auntie Dorrie as we know her, a wonderful lady. Services to the Community was Margaret Lord. Community Group was U3A. The Senior Sportsperson was Paul Leadbetter. Junior Sportsperson was Samantha McKenna. Sports Team of the Year was the Lismore Storm under-18s. Thank you.
I need to explain to the chamber what the procedure will be in agreement that has been put to us by the Clerks—that is, that the adjournment will continue until 11.30 am whereupon it will be truncated and the stay of executions motion will be brought on.
On 18 February, Alcoa made its very difficult decision to cease operations in Geelong at Point Henry. This has resulted in a very significant economic shock for the city that I represent in this place. Next week will be the anniversary of that decision.
We in Labor understand that not every large business can be saved by government, nor is it indeed the role of government to save every large business. But I think there is an expectation on the part of people who work in organisations and companies such as that, which are a pillar of the private-sector economy in towns like Geelong, that their local representatives will do everything they can to fight for their jobs.
That did not happen on the part of government members, in this place, in respect to those people at Alcoa. Indeed, comments in the lead-up to the decision by Alcoa criticised Alcoa for being a company which was not clean and which did not inform its workers of what it was doing. We also heard comments by the Treasurer at the end of 2013, which effectively goaded another large company, Holden, to leave the shores of this country. This does not help.
We do understand that there will be occasions when large companies make decisions to cease their operations, notwithstanding the best endeavours of people to see those operations continue. That occurred in 2013, when Ford made another decision, in Geelong, to cease its operations at the end of 2016. When that very unfortunate decision was made by Ford, at the time of the Gillard government, on the very day the decision was made the Gillard Labor government announced a contribution towards a growth fund—a transition fund—for Geelong, which today has $29½ million in it: the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund.
Funds of this kind around the country make a difference. Indeed, a forerunner to that—the Geelong Investment and Innovation Fund—created almost 900 jobs in Geelong. GRIFF, the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, is on par to do a similar amount of work in terms of creating those jobs. And that is an enormous contribution to a city that is enduring a large economic shock, which is why this, as a policy mechanism, works.
Not surprisingly, as the member for Corio, I imagined that the Abbott Liberal government would, on the news that Alcoa was going to cease its operations in Geelong, make a contribution to a fund that would provide assistance for Geelong to transition in the face of an even larger economic shock associated with Alcoa, if measured by the number of people who would lose their jobs and the speed with which they would lose them.
But here were are—almost a year later—and not a cent has been committed by the Abbott Liberal government towards assisting Geelong to that transition that needs to occur by virtue of this very difficult decision by Alcoa. That is a disgrace. It is a disgrace because since then—on 1 August when the smelter closed its operations and later, on 19 December, when the rolling mill ceased its operations—we have seen 800 or 900 workers lose their employment directly from Alcoa's operations. Countless others, who work for organisations which were contracted to Alcoa, have lost their jobs. As a result, there is nothing to replace that. There could have been hundreds of jobs busily being created in its stead, right now, if a similar or larger amount—an amount commensurate with the number of people who were made unemployed—was contributed by this government. That did not happen. I call on it to happen now. It is an absolute disgrace, and it needs to be seen.
One matter which has been seen as something of a lifesaver for Geelong is the LAND 400 project—again, sprouted by local representatives of the Liberal government. We need to be very clear: this government is delaying LAND 400. There have been no updates to the Defence capability plan since this government came to power. As a result, LAND 400—touted as the saviour of Geelong—is languishing. That is a disgrace too.
I would like to put on record my admiration and thanks to Engineers Australia for the important work they do every day, but specifically in relation to participating in an up-coming nuclear power showcase, at Parliament House, that I am hosting.
On nuclear power I led the debate with a speech to parliament in March 2005. Nuclear power is cheap, clean, safe and sustainable. It would be churlish to say that there are not risks and challenges. The challenges are as real as the opportunities are great.
Having led the charge on the nuclear issue in this place in the past, I know that support for nuclear is not limited by party ties. I ask all members and senators to take advantage of the upcoming nuclear power briefing luncheon that I am hosting. This, I hope, will be the little flick that sets in train the dominoes of inevitability. But, more than that, I hope that we can all approach the issue of nuclear power, and all its possible uses, with a fair and open mind.
There are real fears in the community about nuclear power, but let this not rule or reduce the scope of our imagination or possibilities. In 2005 I tried to ignite a national conversation regarding the use of nuclear power for domestic applications. In latter times I have spoken extensively about the incomparable benefits of adopting and/or just allowing nuclear into the submarine choice mix. Post Collins class, we all need to look at performance and value for money, and an ability to protect Australia and our people. So, on whatever front one wishes to look, be it domestic energy generation, national defence, or even nuclear waste storage, having a mature, reasoned and real debate can only be in Australia's interest.
I welcome the royal commission in South Australia into nuclear. It is well known that former Prime Minister Hawke is a strong supporter of using our vast desert interior for nuclear waste storage. This type of bravery and imagination is what will get Australia firing again. Australia stands to gain from lower electricity costs, increased competitiveness, greater national security independence, and massive and sustainable employment for thousands. This new industry is so obvious, so possible.
To those opposed to the proposed debate, I say that now is the time to stop stopping and start starting. A new perspective. A new opportunity. The first step is by attending the upcoming nuclear briefing luncheon I am hosting in the Senate alcove at 12:15 pm on 24 March. RSVPs can be sent to me directly, and my office team stands ready to lock in places. I encourage all members in this place and the other place to contact me on this important issue and upcoming event. George Bernard Shaw is often quoted for saying, 'I see things that never were and say, why not?' Today, the debate on nuclear is at the same turning point of history. The challenges of the future will only be greater. So I wish to thank Engineers Australia for your necessary bravery and imagination. On Tuesday, 24 March, get lunch, get the facts and get a new perspective. Today, it is time to move beyond the politics of fear—fear of the objection of the minority—and negativity, in the interests of the majority.
Today I rise to update the House on the bushfire situation in my electorate of O'Connor. There are currently four bushfires burning in various parts of my vast electorate. On Tuesday of this week an out of control fire led to the closure of a major interstate link road, the Hyden Norseman Rd. This fire is currently being attended by volunteer fire and rescue services from the Shires of Dundas and Norseman.
On the same day another fire raged out of control some six kilometres north of Highway 1, in the wheat belt Shire of Yilgarn. Currently, it is moving slowly in a north-westerly direction, not posing a threat to lives or property, but is still uncontained.
Yesterday, I was advised that the all-clear had been issued to my constituents affected by the Boddington fire, which has spilled over from the forest into the wheat and sheep farmland of the Shire of Williams. Local units, together with 54 fire fighters from volunteer bushfire brigades from as far afield as Esperance and Kalgoorlie, over 600 kilometres away, are in attendance, together with the Department of Fire and Emergency Services and Department of Parks and Wildlife. Over 52,000 hectares of land has been burnt. However, there have been minimal stock casualties and only minor losses to buildings and a bridge.
Meanwhile, the Northcliffe fire in the far south-west of my electorate has been slated as one of the biggest fires in Western Australian history. Started by a lightning strike in the dense Karri forest 12 days ago, it has burnt out of control, necessitating the evacuation of all Northcliffe residents to nearby Pemberton. This fire is currently classified as contained but not controlled, with forecasts that the mature Karri forests will continue to burn well into winter. Residents have recently been able to return to their homes in Northcliffe township, the coastal community of Windy Harbour and the surrounding farming properties. Last Thursday, when the fire was still at its full intensity, I visited the evacuation centre at the Pemberton sports centre, while over 250 firefighters waged a ground battle in the forest and there was a concerted aerial assault by water bombers and helicopter tankers. Several dairies, and many farms, sheds and dwellings, as well as the township of Northcliffe, were saved from certain devastation as the fire swept through over 95,000 hectares of forest and pasture, covering 330 kilometre perimeter. I was fortunate to be briefed by Incident Controller Greg Maires from the Department of Parks and Wildlife, who afforded me a tour of the incident headquarters in Pemberton and introduced me to the personnel who had been instrumental in coordinating the firefighting effort and planning for the recovery. There could be no greater example of cross-agency collaboration than to witness the incident controller from DPAW hand over to his two deputies from the Western Australian fire and emergency services and the Country Fire Authority Victoria.
I take this opportunity to applaud the combined efforts of all emergency services—ambulance, fire and police—together with support organisations including Telstra, Western Power, Water Corporation of WA, Main Roads Western Australia and the Department of Agriculture and Food for their roles in the immediate emergency. I also thank representatives from the various departments of Social Services, Health and Education for addressing the needs of displaced residents. I commend the entire community of Manjimup Shire for their fortitude and community spirit—in particular Shire President Wade DeCampo and CEO Andrew Campbell for their leadership during the crisis.
Last Thursday evening I met with the advance party of the Australian Army who were engaged in establishing a 200-bed tent city to house the 130 Victorian firefighters who had been commuting over 200 kilometres to the fire front each day. By Friday morning, 59 Army personnel had established a makeshift village for the exhausted firefighters, complete with recreational facilities. The federal government responded to requests for assistance by providing large volumes of aerially deployed fire retardant, with two 18,000 litre water bombers to deliver it, originating from the Richmond air base. The following day, WA Premier Colin Barnett declared the area a natural disaster, activating the joint Commonwealth-state natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements, paving the way for emergency financial assistance and longer-term funding for restoration of any last infrastructure. Since then my office has attended recovery meetings and is currently assisting with obtaining an extension of lodging deadlines with the ATO to support local businesses through this difficult time. I anticipate we will have a further role in assisting people to access disaster relief.
As this community prepares to rebuild, it is miraculous that there has been no loss of life, minimal damage to homes and only minor stock injuries. Infrastructure has been largely spared, though there remain some issues with water quality in Northcliffe and Windy Harbour, and power is in the process of being restored. The southern artery from the town, the South West Highway, is likely to remain closed for three to four weeks due to the ongoing risk of tree limbs falling as the forest smoulders. Again, I congratulate all personnel involved on their dedication and professionalism in rescuing these areas of my electorate from the torment and tragedy associated with the bushfire season.
When I was growing up one of my very good friends, Virginia Shedden, told me what her mother did. I did not quite understand what she meant. Her mother is Zena Shedden and she used to have a very good friend, Val Cooper, who she worked with. Virginia explained to me what her mother did and for someone who came from a very loving home and could not have wanted for anything, what she was explaining seemed very foreign to me. She explained to me that her mother Zena and Val worked at a place called Blacktown Community Aid. It is an organisation that helps young people, desperate people and people in our community who have nowhere left to turn. I did not know that, many years later, I would become a patron of this great organisation.
Today, unfortunately, I rise to condemn this government for its attack on the underprivileged and at-risk members of my community by defunding Blacktown Community Aid and Information Services and effectively ending it after 41 years. Blacktown Community Aid has been serving Blacktown's most vulnerable for over 40 years. It has worked tirelessly to help victims of domestic violence, Blacktown's homeless population and many more vulnerable and disadvantaged people.
Just three days before Christmas, I got an email from Blacktown Community Aid telling me that unfortunately they would no longer be able to continue operating because this government had ripped vital funding from the centre as it cut funding across the board to homelessness, community support and financial support services around the country.
For over 40 years this organisation had been assisting people in my community who were really struggling, and now this government just closed its doors. Blacktown Community Aid Coordinator, Corine Raymond said:
We will now have to close our doors after 41 years of service, obviously their (the Government's) decision making process wasn't well thought out, especially in a needy place like Blacktown where we have serviced many vulnerable Australians. This news has caused a lot of grief and huge disappointment in the community sector, especially 3 days before Christmas.
This is news that has united the Blacktown community in its condemnation of this government. You only need to look to some of the comments on the Blacktown Sun's Facebook page. From Francesca Agosti:
A disgrace. This is what the good people of Western Sydney can expect from Liberal governments.
From Marilynn Bradd:
It's not fair. What happens to the community now!
Susan McGuire:
It is a big mistake, dreadful and shocking. It will cause all sorts of problems for the local area. It is a much needed facility. I cannot understand how this can happen. I want to know how they can justify it.
Debbie Hicks:
Just wrong. This closure should not proceed.
Blacktown Women's & Girls' Health Centre, a very respected organisation, said:
What a terrible loss for the local community.
Indira Devi said:
Blacktown Community Aid has always been there to provide support and aid to the community. I hope the Politicians are ready to put their hands in their own pockets. Stop promising and start delivering.
This is the impact of this government's twisted agenda; this is the real world impact.
You cannot just slash support to those in the community who are struggling and not expect it to have a damaging impact on the social cohesion of that community. Our community is angry. It is the same story with Holroyd Community Aid. The government thinks this budget is fair. I call on the Prime Minister to come to Blacktown and explain to Blacktown Community Aid why it is fair that they have had to close their doors, whilst multinational companies let off the hook when it comes to paying their fair share of tax. Ever since the election, this government has attacked the most disadvantaged in our community, continuously breaking its election promises. This year, 2015, will be a tough year for many Australians and it has been made harder because of this Prime Minister and his unworthy and cruel government.
I say to Blacktown Community Aid, to all its volunteers—it was primarily a volunteer organisation: you operated with transparency and diligence for 41 years. Our community thanks you for what you have done. You have been far more cost-effective than many other organisations could hope to be. The outputs and your ability to achieve so much for our community far exceeded any costs associated with running the organisation. Thank you for everything you did for our local area. We will be far worse off without you. Unfortunately, there will be some in our community who will be absolutely devastated by this, and this will manifest itself in the months and years to come.
Every single day, the government is spending $100 million more than it collects in revenue due to the fiscal irresponsibility and economic vandalism of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. The budget is not expected to be back in surplus until 2019-20—two elections from now—and, on current projections, by 2023-24, the nation's gross debt will be $499 billion or 19.4 per cent of GDP. This will see taxpayers fork out $14 billion a year in interest alone—up from the $10.8 billion we are already paying to service Labor's debt.
Governments, like individuals, need to live within their means and, in order to do that, we have to reduce spending. It is as simple as that. Those opposite cannot recognise that. However, 86 per cent of what the government spends relies on legislation. So if you want to reduce spending you have to change legislation. And here lies the problem: The Labor controlled Senate and will not support our plan to fix the budget mess that Labor created. Labor's outright refusal to take responsibility for the budget crisis has led to occasions of rank hypocrisy—which would be laughable were it not so serious for our children's future and the future of this country.
For example, this week, the Minister for Finance announced that the government had secured another important budget saving in the Senate, with the successful passage of the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2013. This measure was initiated and banked by Wayne Swann and the Gillard Labor government in their 2013-14 budget but never legislated; yet, now in opposition Labor opposed their own savings. As I have said, Labor's hypocrisy would be laughable were the implications not so serious, and this example is no exception. If this Labor saving had failed to pass the Senate it would have cost the budget $1.35 billion over the current forward estimates. Labor created this mess and now they are stopping us fixing it. For as long as Labor's deficits continue debt will continue to rise. Unless we take action, debt will rise to $677 billion within 10 years. That would mean every man, woman and child in Australia would be shouldered with around $25,000 worth of debt in less than a decade from now.
This month, the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the new head of Treasury delivered a dire warning that if the government's spending cuts were blocked by Labor in the Senate, if they were not passed, then the budget is at risk of never getting back to surplus. As the Prime Minister said in question time this week, in the Senate Labor is standing in the way of $28 billion worth of savings. Where negotiations over passage of the government's legislation have been delayed or impeded in the Senate, the budget has been slugged with a $10.6 billion cost. Despite the Senate being obstructive, the government is committed to the task of budget repair and will continue to pursue savings in a fair and sensible way.
So far, the government has managed to implement a raft of measures that are making a difference to people's lives by lowering the cost of living and making Australia more prosperous. Australia's debt will be $170 billion lower than it would have been under Labor, as a result of last year's budget announcements. The average family now is saving $190 a month extra because we have scrapped the carbon tax, because petrol prices are lower and because interest rates are at a new record low of 2.25 per cent.
Over 200,000 jobs were created last year. That is more than triple the rate under Labor in their last year of government. This equates to around 585 new jobs created each day or a new job every 2½ minutes. In 2014, there were over 223,000 new companies registered in Australia, an increase of 10.2 per cent of what we saw in 2013. That means almost an extra 21,000 companies were created in 2014 compared to 2013, which is a record since ASIC company registrations records began in 1999.
As you can see, despite Labor's best efforts, we are getting on with our economic plan. We have scrapped the carbon tax and the mining tax and we are reducing red tape and unshackling business. We are getting the budget on a credible path back to surplus. Yet there is, of course, much more work to be done. No-one is denying that. But in order to put the budget back in surplus so that our children are not paying for Labor's economic mismanagement, we desperately need the opposition to get out of the way and to support our reforms so that we can right the wrongs of their time in government. The stakes could not be higher. If Labor does not rapidly alter its ways soon, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Australia could end up going down same way as Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain.
Labor should be ashamed of that. For our future and for our children's future I urge the Labor Party to do what is in the best interest of this country and let the government get on with the job before it is too late for all of us. I urge the Labor Party not to hide behind what they are doing now, where they are trying to rip us apart on legislation. Get out of the way, get your heads out of the sand and let us get on with the job.
Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.
Today, as we debate, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, two of the Bali nine, are preparing to face a firing squad in Indonesia. Along with Scott Rush, the position of Chan and Sukumaran is one which has concerned me ever since I entered parliament in 2005. It was not long after I came here that they were arrested in Denpasar and charged with drug trafficking.
I hold strong views against capital punishment. I oppose the death penalty wherever it occurs. To me, capital punishment is the most cruel and inhuman response to crime. It is one that represents a violation of the most basic of all human rights; and that is life itself. As a parent, I cannot start to imagine the devastation that the Chan and Sukumaran families must be feeling right now given the Indonesian government's announcement that they will proceed with the execution of these two Australians. This decision follows their 10 years of imprisonment in Kerobokan Prison. That is 10 years on death row, 10 years of being haunted by the daily prospect of uncertainty associated with an execution.
Yes, they committed a serious crime and they deserve to be punished—but not the death penalty. As most credible reports conclude, capital punishment is not a deterrent of serious crime in today's society. If anything, the death penalty is a backward measure and most appropriately confined to history. In modern society, I believe we have adequate means to punish people for their crimes, but also, in the process, to assist them with rehabilitation. That is good for society. My opposition to capital punishment including advocacy for its abolition, is universal. It is not only when it involves Australians. I took the same view in respect of the Bali bombers, notwithstanding the fact that that was an attack primarily directed against Australian citizens that, as a matter of fact, claimed 88 Australian lives.
Over the years I have been greatly influenced by Mr Brian Deegan, an Adelaide based lawyer who lost his son Joshua in the Bali bombing. His son was 22 at the time, and was in Bali with team mates following a successful football season.
In an article published in Catholic Social Justice magazine, Mr Deegan wrote:
The vision of my son’s murderer, seated uncomfortably on the harsh concrete floor in a room bare of the conveniences he had once taken for granted, evokes little sympathy.
He continues:
But the prospect of him picking at grains of rice from his last meal is something I wish no part of. I do not wish for death of those convicted, for I oppose the death penalty under any circumstances.
For a father who lost a son in such tragic circumstances, I think those words are most telling.
It is also significant in this case that in Indonesia's immediate region most of its near neighbours have abolished the death penalty—Cambodia, the Philippines, Timor Leste, Australia, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. Until very recently Indonesia has exercised great restraint in the use of the death penalty and has extended clemency, including to foreign nationals. According to The Jakarta Post on 21 December 2014, the previous administration of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono helped at least 210 Indonesian citizens to escape the death penalty in China, Iran, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, thanks in part to Indonesia's unofficial moratorium on executions, between 2008 and 2013. The former Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa has admitted that Indonesians on death row in overseas locations had benefited from this sensible practice. Bear that in mind. This is what Indonesia did on behalf of its citizens.
Essentially, I am seeking to have the same consideration applied to the case of these two Australians as the Indonesian government sought and gained from other countries in relation to its own citizens. Anything less may, in the eyes of Australians, appear as being hypocritical. Given this, the Indonesian government should understand and appreciate that the Commonwealth of Australia, along with each of its states and territories, has long since abolished the death penalty.
Abolition represents not only the legal position but also the cultural position of this country. In fact, Australia is one of 130 nations that have abolished capital punishment, a trend that many countries around the world are also showing leadership in through their advocacy of human rights.
I strongly align myself with the views of the then Chief Judge of the South African Constitution Court, Ismail Mohamed said:
The death penalty sanctions the deliberate annihilation of life. … It is the last, the most devastating and the most irreversible recourse of the criminal law, involving as it necessarily does, the planned and calculated termination of life itself; the destruction of the greatest and most precious gift which is bestowed on all humankind.
Having met Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran in 2011 in Kerobokan Prison, along with Scott Rush and others, I would like to indicate the nature of the people I saw there. With respect to Andrew Chan, he was part of the way through his theology degree, which he has now completed. He is clearly a devout Christian, and has been providing pastoral services to inmates. The governor of the prison praised his efforts. Myuran Sukumaran was undertaking a fine arts degree and had become an accomplished artist. As a matter of fact, through colleagues of mine, I am aware that the international arts fraternity is preparing to exhibit many of his works. This has all been the product of the rehabilitation system at Kerobokan Prison. That is something I would have thought the Indonesian authorities should have been very proud of. Not only have both men shown genuine remorse for their crime, they have become valued members of the Kerobokan community and are providing a valued role with respect to other prisoners. I encourage the government of Indonesia to take that into account.
The other matter is the fact that the arrest of the Bali Nine back in 2005, and the subsequent proceedings in their trials, all came about initially from an Australian Federal Police investigation and the fact that the Australian Federal Police shared detailed criminal intelligence information with their Indonesian counterparts. Rightly so—we want to have the highest level of cooperation when it comes to law enforcement; but if the Indonesian government maintains its position in relation to the death penalty in this regard, it will make it very difficult for our law enforcement agencies to cooperate with Indonesian law enforcement agencies—and with other law enforcement agencies whose countries have the death penalty—particularly in relation to crimes that may attract capital punishment.
In concluding, I would strongly encourage the Indonesian government to give consideration to the circumstances of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, taking into account their rehabilitation and also the suffering they and their families have already experienced. I associate myself fully with the comments of both the foreign minister and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and encourage the Indonesian government to review its position. (Time expired)
Why is it that blank bullets are distributed to nine of the 12 members of the Indonesian firing squad, leaving each member of the squad with the hope that it was not their bullet that exploded the heart of the condemned person tied to a stake? It is because it is contrary to our shared human value of respect for human life for the state to plan and calculate the termination of life, regardless of the nature of the crime or the nationality of the perpetrator.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue of the death penalty at this critical time for two Australians, and for many others, on death row in Indonesia. I thank the foreign minister and the shadow foreign minister for their eloquent and heartfelt statements and I acknowledge the extensive efforts of the government, the opposition and other parties to advocate for Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan. We understand their executions are imminent. The orders to transfer them to their place of execution are already at Kerobokan prison. This is a critical time and opportunity for Australians to speak out about this injustice and to join the strong campaign by community organisations like Mercy, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; Australian bishops and imams; and many, many Australian citizens.
Just over a week ago I attended the concert for Mercy, in Martin Place, Sydney. I thank the organisers including Ben Quilty, Brigid Delaney and Matt Goldberg, and the wonderful artists who performed, introduced by David Wenham as MC, and the fantastic legal team led by Julian McMahon, who spoke to the crowd via video link. The most moving parts of the concert, apart from the music, were the letters written by Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, who were aware the concert was being held, and the plea from Myuran's grandmother to the Indonesian president not to kill her grandson.
Last week a letter endorsed by more than 110 federal members and senators from across the political spectrum was sent to the Indonesian government and parliament requesting that the death sentences be urgently reconsidered. I thank those many colleagues who indicated their endorsement of the letter and remain hopeful that we may see a reversal of the Indonesian decision to execute these young men. As one of the legal team said in an interview last week, 'Where there's life, there's hope.'
The letter from MPs did not seek to minimise the serious nature of Sukuraman's and Chan's crime of drug trafficking, given the damaging effects of illicit drugs on our societies. We expressed the view that Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan should be punished for their crime, and that we have the highest respect for Indonesia's sovereignty and political independence, and for the integrity of its judicial system.
We noted that in a case brought by Indonesian citizen Edith Yunita Sianturi, Scott Rush and others, in 2007, in the Indonesian Constitutional Court, the validity of the death penalty was upheld by a majority of 6 to 3, yet the majority judges accepted, on the extensive evidence before them, that the death penalty was not a deterrent any more than life or other heavy term of imprisonment. The majority judges recommended that the death penalty should no longer be the primary form of punishment for serious offences in Indonesia and that it should be able to be imposed with a prohibition or grace period of 10 years, so that 'if the prisoner shows good behaviour, it can be amended to a lifelong sentence or imprisonment for 20 years'.
Mr Chan and Mr Sukumaran have now been imprisoned for more than 10 years. They have demonstrated genuine remorse and have become model prisoners, working constructively at Kerobokan not only on their own rehabilitation and reform, but also for that of other prisoners. By reason of their good behaviour, demonstrated rehabilitation and education of other prisoners, both Mr Chan and Mr Sukumaran would appear to come within the scope of the Constitutional Court's sensible and humane recommendation.
As noted in the letter by more than 110 Australian MPs, it is significant that both Mr Chan and Mr Sukumaran were only apprehended in Bali as a result of information provided by the Australian Federal Police to their Indonesian counterparts in relation to their presence in Bali with drugs obtained in Indonesia, but intended for sale and use in Australia. The impact of their crime, serious as it was, was intended for Australia, not Indonesia.
Over many years now the Indonesian police and the AFP have exchanged intelligence and engaged with each other to address international crime and terrorism. It is certainly not in the interest of either country for cooperation between our police forces to be constrained, yet constraints are inevitable if cooperation puts people at risk of execution.
The MPs' letter also noted that the international trend—including for the most serious crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity—is overwhelmingly away from capital punishment and towards the imposition of lengthy prison sentences for serious crimes, through which prisoners can reflect on their mistakes and endeavour to atone for them through good behaviour, rehabilitation and community service. The death penalty admits no possibility of redemption, or of rehabilitation.
Australians will recall the hanging of the young Melbourne man Van Tuong Nguyen on 2 December 2005, in Singapore. Van had admitted carrying drugs in order to help his twin brother pay off debts. Van admitted guilt at the first opportunity, showed great remorse, and he fully cooperated with police. Just before he died, his lawyer Lex Lasry said: 'He is completely rehabilitated, completely reformed, completely focused on doing what is good, and now they are going to kill him'. Could anyone argue honestly that this execution achieved any useful purpose for society? Of course not, and nor would the executions of Myuran and Andrew, who are similarly rehabilitated and focused on doing good for others, achieve any useful purpose.
I acknowledge that Indonesia takes offences involving drugs very seriously and that it wishes, understandably, to ensure that a strong message is sent to the community that dealing in drugs will not be tolerated. I would simply say that it is possible to be tough on crime and drugs without imposing the death penalty, which is itself a fundamental violation of the right to life. The right to life is enshrined within the Indonesian constitution, and has been honoured by Indonesia in its manifest efforts to help those many Indonesian citizens facing execution in other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Iran and Singapore, and in the restraint shown by Indonesia in its application of the death penalty over recent years.
The application of the death penalty, which, in the case of Andrew and Myuran would come after they have spent 10 years on death row in an endless churn of dread, hope and uncertainty, is the practice of torture, as noted by renowned antideath penalty campaigner and author of Dead Man Walking and The Death of Innocents, Sister Helen Prejean, who observed:
… by the time people I have been with finally climb into the chair to be killed, they have died a thousand times already because of their anticipation of the final horror.
We must also recognise that the death penalty is almost always political and commonly applied on the basis of discriminatory considerations rather than the facts of individual cases. In the US, for instance, African Americans represent 42 per cent of the inmates on death row but only 12 per cent of the nation's population. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the death penalty system:
… is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against people, largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys, the race of the victim and where the crime took place. People of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if the victim is white.
Former Indonesian President Yudhoyono instituted a moratorium on the death penalty in Indonesia, following the public outcry over a series of televised beheadings of Indonesian female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia and a change of mood in Indonesia about the death penalty and the importance of mercy. Unfortunately, as we are only too aware of in this country, politicians can also be quite adept at influencing public moods in a negative sense, and that seems to be what is currently happening in Indonesia in the context of drug-related death penalty cases. It is an appalling injustice for the flames of human life to be extinguished based on the accident of fortune that is politics.
At stake is a principle that I am glad to say is adhered to on a bipartisan basis in Australia, in this parliament—namely, that the death penalty must be opposed wherever and to whomever it is applied. In 2010, I was proud that the former Labor government, with the support of the then opposition, passed the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Act, which imported into Australian law the principles contained in the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aimed at the abolition of the death penalty. That was why I felt it was important to speak in this place in 2008 on the anniversary of the Bali bombings to express opposition to the executions of the Bali bombers that were about to take place. At the time, I quoted from a letter written on the World Day Against the Death Penalty to the then member for Werriwa, now member for Fowler, Chris Hayes. The letter was from Scott Rush, who, at the time, was on death row and whose sentence has thankfully been commuted: Scott wrote:
If the opposition—against the death penalty—is just for us Australian citizens it makes us stick out, like sore thumbs, amongst all the other nationals who have also got the death penalty. I say this because I share my cell with a Nigerian, Emmanuel, whose dignity and kindness helps comfort us on our many dark nights. So taking a consistent stand for everyone on the death penalty—that helps us here on the inside of the wall.
Of course, we are focused on the plight of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran—two young men, Australians—but our plea for their lives, our careful and principled argument for their lives, extends to a call for mercy, humanity and respect for the right to life to be shown to all those sentenced to death.
Finally, I say again to Myuran and Andrew that we recognise and value the hard work you have done in remorse and repentance, to conduct your lives with dignity and meaning and to show compassion and care for others. Our thoughts are with you and your families. (Time expired)
I am very pleased to be able to talk on the motion as moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I acknowledge her enormous efforts in her capacity as Australia's foreign minister to do everything she can and to spearhead the government's response to doing all we can to stop the execution of Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan. All members of the government, and I think we are joined here by all members of the parliament, understand that this is a desperately difficult time for those two men and also for their families and friends. I personally feel very sorry for the individuals and their family and friends. Their predicament is a very sad illustration of what can ultimately happen to those who get caught up in international crime.
The government is opposed to the death penalty not only for Australian citizens but for all people of the world. We do not believe in the death penalty. I personally find it abhorrent, and we do all we can to assist, if Australians find themselves in these circumstances.
In the case of Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan, the efforts of the Australian government, supported by the opposition, have been extensive. We are doing everything we can, and as the Prime Minister has said, we will leave absolutely no stone unturned in our efforts to stop these executions from occurring. A lot of that effort will be visible to the public; some of it will not. But I think people should feel very comfortable that we are doing absolutely everything that we can.
The government continues to make representations at the highest levels. The Prime Minister has made representations. The foreign minister has made representations. The Attorney-General has made representations. I have made representations. The vast majority of members of this parliament have made representations.
There has been a lot of commentary about the role of the Australian Federal Police, the agency for which I have ministerial responsibility, in the prosecution of Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan. I have been asked about this publicly and I have said—and I will not change that here today—that I do not want to get into a long dissertation about the role of the AFP, because now is not the time for that. Now is the time for us to focus all of our available efforts in doing everything we can to stop these executions from occurring.
I want to put a little on the record, because I think it is important that some of the assertions that are out there about the role of the Australian Federal Police are not borne out by the evidence. Firstly, it is vitally important that the AFP cooperate with our partners internationally. We need to do that to keep us safe from terrorism. We need to do that to keep us safe from serious and organised crime and we need to do that to keep us safe from other criminal activity. Australia is in a region where the death penalty is imposed by many of the partners that we cooperate with, but the high level of cooperation between us and countries that have the death penalty must continue. It is of great benefit to Australia as a nation and it does an enormous amount to keep us safe.
We have a very high level of cooperation with Indonesia, and Indonesia is a key law enforcement partner for us. As I said, I do not want to go any further than that but I urge people not to make absolutest statements about the role of the Australian Federal Police. We want to focus on doing everything we can to make sure these executions do not occur.
I also want to note that the Federal Court has looked at the role of the Australian Federal Police in relation to this matter and they have concluded that they AFP met all its legal obligations when it disclosed information to the Indonesian authorities about the arrest of the Bali Nine.
I cannot stress enough how critical our cooperation is with Indonesia. That cooperation needs to continue and it will continue to keep Australians safe. It is also cooperation that has been supported by both sides of government.
It is always the case that when Australians commit crimes overseas they will be subject to the legal systems of those countries. Absolutely nothing good comes of the illicit drug trade.
That is all I will say about those matters. Obviously, there will be further community debate about that, but it is very important at the moment that we do not distract ourselves by doing something that will impact on our efforts to assist Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan. We will do everything we can to impress on the Indonesian authorities at every level that Australians stand opposed to this punishment being carried out. We understand that these two men have done the wrong thing. We understand that they deserve to be punished. We do not support the death penalty.
I would urge the Indonesians to continue to consider our heartfelt appeals for clemency from the vast majority of people in this parliament and probably the vast majority of people in Australia.
I have written to my Indonesian counterpart and I have made those points. Other ministers will continue to do all we can to stop these executions from occurring. We hope over time that those efforts might bear fruit. Clearly, it is a very difficult situation. The Australian government will continue to do all that we can to assist.
It is with great sadness I rise to endorse the motion that has been moved by the foreign minister and seconded by the shadow foreign minister. I want to start by saying that I have the most profound respect for Indonesia. I certainly do not think that we want to see this debate as one where Australia is preaching to Indonesia. This is a country that Australia has been critically involved in since its very inception. Australia has a long history of supporting the Indonesians, firstly, in their quest for freedom in the postcolonial period. It is a nation of over 250 million people, and it has achieved a very stable democracy in some very challenging circumstances. It is truly amazing what has been achieved in Indonesia since it gained independence in the postwar period. So I think we all want to stress that we admire Indonesia and the steps that it has taken to raise its community, many of whom were in poverty, and to provide opportunities for its community. We understand the need for very tough laws on drugs as Indonesia seeks to create a stable environment for the community into the 21st century.
We want to have an even stronger relationship with Indonesia. I personally am very much committed to increasing the teaching of the Indonesian language in our primary and secondary schools and universities. I want those bonds to be stronger. We are urging President Joko Widodo to really take the importance of this relationship into central focus when making a final decision on the fate of the two young Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.
In my constituency, across Western Australia and, indeed, across Australia, people are really deeply concerned about the fate of these young men. They have seen in great detail their transformation in the prison in Bali. They see that these are young people who—through, one might argue, the enlightenment of the Indonesian prison system—have been enabled to grow beyond the state they were in when they were apprehended for their crimes in association with drug smuggling. These are young men who have been able to go through a period of considerable rehabilitation and moral restoration during their time within that prison. We want to acknowledge that has happened.
We want the Indonesian government to show the compassion and enlightenment that we know that they are capable of and to free these young Australians. In that, they can not only spare these men and their families great grief and trauma but also really do something very positive to cement the bonds of friendship between Australia and Indonesia. Regardless of what happens, we are going to be close neighbours. But I and many Australians want that relationship to be an even more profoundly connected relationship where we bring our cultures together. If the Indonesian government and President Widodo were able to see their way clear to this act of mercy—this act of clemency—it would be greatly appreciated by the Australian community and, I believe, would go a long way to taking our connection and our intercommunity relations with Indonesia to a higher plane. I believe that can only be to our mutual benefit. I want to acknowledge the good work that has been done by so many people pressing the case for Andrew and Myuran. I want to add my voice to that. This is not hectoring, or a criticism of Indonesia; it is a plea to a magnificent and successful country to take this additional step to ensure that relations between our communities remain strong.
I rise to speak in support of the motion, as moved by the Foreign Minister, seeking a stay of execution and a reconsideration of the clemency bids for Mr Chan and Mr Sukumaran. I also wish to acknowledge the ceaseless efforts of the foreign minister, the Prime Minister and members and senators on both sides of the house to secure this clemency—to secure this mercy.
I am going to speak in Bahasa Indonesia and I will then provide a translation. To President Joko Widodo, I say: mohon minta belas kasihan. Andrew Chan dan Myuran Sukumaran melakukan tindakan kriminal yang sangat berat. Tetapi, mereka sudah berubah dan menjadi orang yang membantu sesamanya. Sebagaimana halnya Indonesia bekerja keras untuk meminta belas kasihan bagi para warga negara Indonesia untuk tidak dihukum mati, Australia juga mohon minta belas kasihan untuk warga negaranya. Saya mohon Presiden memberi belas kasihan. Terima kasih.
The translation in English is: please give mercy. Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran committed a serious crime. But they have changed and have become people who are helping others. As Indonesia works hard to seek mercy for its citizens not to be executed, Australia also seeks mercy for its citizens. I ask of the President: please give mercy. Thank you.
For three years as a child I lived in Indonesia—a year in Jakarta and two years in Banda Aceh. It had a profound influence on me as a little boy seeing a country with a great sense of generosity. I remember very warmly the celebrations at the end of Ramadan; the willingness of people in homes in northern Sumatra to welcome us in and offer us a drink—often heavily sweetened coffee which would set my little brother and I off for the next few hours—and to give to us, even though they had so little. I have also seen what it is like on the inside of a jail—not Kerobokan Prison but other prisons in Indonesia. I am aware of the hardships there and that is also relevant in thinking about the role that Andrew Chan has played since his imprisonment.
I have seen, too, the impact of drugs and I understand why, for Indonesia, cracking down on drug smuggling is an important issue. Drugs can ruin young lives. Just as those who traffic drugs tend to be poor and underprivileged, those who use them tend to be poor and underprivileged. And so Indonesia's work to reduce the scourge of drugs in its community has my full support.
But to do so, Indonesia need not employ the death penalty. My plea to President Jokowi is that just as Indonesia has reached out to other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, to urge clemency for its own citizens, so, do we now—your Australian brothers and sisters—reach out to you on behalf of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran . These are young men—Andrew born in 1984 and Myuran born in 1981. Both committed their crimes nearly a decade ago when they were in their early 20s.
In jail, as other speakers have noted, they have been reformed prisoners. Too often, prison is a place where rehabilitation does not take place, but in the case of these two young men it does indeed seem to have occurred. In the atmosphere of hardship that I referred to earlier, Andrew Chan has become a lay preacher. He has reached out to those around him. He said of his conversion to Christianity:
When I got back to my cell, I said, ‘God, I asked you to set me free, not kill me.’ God spoke to me and said, ‘Andrew, I have set you free from the inside out, I have given you life!’ From that moment on I haven’t stopped worshipping Him. I had never sung before, never led worship, until Jesus set me free.
Myuran Sukumaran has become an artist. He has tapped into his creative self and, working with Ben Quilty, has begun to attain something of a reputation for his creative works. They are too young men whose contribution to Indonesia in the years to come could be significant in making a difficult environment a little more bearable for those around them. In his book on the death penalty, Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson, a United States academic and lawyer, makes the point that all of us are better than the worst thing we have ever done. In the case of Andrew and Myuran this must be true, and their subsequent acts have shown that.
The use of the death penalty is morally wrong and economically ineffective. Australia abolished the death penalty nearly half a century ago, with the last person put to death being Ronald Ryan, put to death by the Bolte government in 1967. So no-one under 48 in Australia has been alive when an execution has taken place here. One of the reasons that we abolished the death penalty was a moral one. We would never dream to say of somebody who had committed a sexual assault that we would punish them on the eye-for-an-eye principal; that the state would in turn commit a sexual assault upon that person. And yet in the case of murder, an eye for an eye is considered by some to be right.
It misses the fact that the justice system can be imperfect and that people on death row have frequently had their sentences overturned, as in the case of Walter McMillan, whose conviction was ultimately overturned by Bryan Stevenson. But it also understates the ability of people to change. A recent review of the literature on the deterrent effect of the death penalty carried out by John Donohue at Stanford University and Justin Wolfers at the University of Michigan has shown very clearly that in the United States there is no deterrent impact. There is no clear evidence that the existence of the death penalty or the number of people put to death reduces the homicide rate. So for these moral and economic reasons, I believe that the death penalty is wrong and should be rescinded. And in the individual cases of Chan and Sukumaran, we in this place call upon the Indonesian government to recognise the hand of friendship extended by some—like the previous speaker, who like me speaks in Bahasa, having lived for three years in Indonesia—who have a great respect for Indonesia and for Indonesians, and a personal respect for President Jokowi, and who call on him to do the right thing by exercising clemency in this case.
It is with sadness that I stand here today and offer my sincere thoughts and prayers to Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran—the two Australians in Bali facing execution for the crime of drug trafficking—and I commend the parliamentarians on both sides of the chamber for their support in calling for clemency. To all of those people who have spoken on this motion, I thank you for making a stand for these two men and for the more than 100 parliamentarians who signed the letter to the Indonesian ambassador seeking clemency.
On 13 February 2006, Lawrence and Rush, the first of the of the Bali Nine to face sentencing, were sentenced to life imprisonment. The following day Czugaj and Stephens were sentenced to life imprisonment. Sadly, Andrew and Myuran were sentenced to death via firing squad, the first ever death sentences imposed by the Denpasar District Court.
I want to say to the families of these two young men, Andrew and Myuran, that you have my deepest sympathy for your situation and what you have experienced over the last 10 years or so, though no words could possibly ease the pain you have been experiencing since the arrests.
Every parent in Australia who watched the truly saddening plea of Raji Sukumaran, mother of Myuran, as she read a statement in Jakarta on behalf of herself and Helen Chan, the mother of Andrew Chan, would have felt their anguish and felt horrified to see those words coming from that mother's heart:
We beg for mercy for our sons, we beg you to spare our sons’ lives, we beg you, please don’t kill our sons.
I remember the day that the Bali Nine were arrested—and Scott Rush's parents are in my electorate—because it was the day my son was born. As I see my son approaching his 10th birthday this year, a son that I could hold in my hand the day they were arrested, I see how much my son has grown and I think of the lives that these men have missed out on over the last 10 years, and the lives that their parents have missed out on. I know because of Lee and Chris Rush and the great work that they have been doing to support all of the Bali Nine, not just their son Scott.
I believe in a strong system of justice. I understand that Andrew and Myuran should be punished for the serious crime of trafficking illicit drugs. No-one in this parliament has questioned that. In Australia we take the crime of drug running very seriously, and the implementation of these crimes results in penalties, including imprisonment. We understand that.
I have sympathy for the situation in Indonesia where drugs are sadly consuming the lives of people every day and sensible governments must help their constituents; however, I note that the drugs being smuggled in this situation were intended to harm Australians, not Indonesians.
Irrespective of the crime, I unreservedly oppose the death penalty in all cases wherever it occurs in the world, whether it be terrorists in Bali, people smuggling drugs or anything in between. No crime can justify the cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state.
I support the view of Amnesty International and said when I was the co-chair of that group that:
The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights ... it violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
On 6 March 2008, it was revealed that three of the Bali Nine, Norman, Chen and Nguyen, who were issued death sentences on appeal, had their sentences reduced to life imprisonment. Thankfully, on 10 May 2011, Rush's appeal was successful in reducing his sentence from the death penalty to life imprisonment. There is still more to be done to release Scott, someone else who has changed his circumstances while in jail. I know that Lee and Chris Rush are doing all they can to help him. I ask that the Indonesian president show some compassion to implement the decision of the Indonesian Constitutional Court in the 2007 case of Edith Sianturi, Scott Rush and others, which recommended that the death penalty should no longer be the primary form of punishment in Indonesia, and that it should be imposed with a prohibition period of 10 years so that if the prisoner shows good behaviour, as Andrew and Myuran have done, it can be amended to a lifelong sentence or imprisonment for 20 years.
So I plead with the Indonesian president, new in his tenure, popularly elected—and surprised many—that now is the chance for him to show compassion and strength, especially in the light of the rehabilitation of Andrew and Myuran, the remorse they have shown during their time in prison, and the help they have given to other prisoners over the past nearly 10 years. He should recognise the advantage that saving Andrew's and Myuran's lives would present to the Indonesian system, because of the help they have given other prisoners. By observing the positive change Andrew and Myuran have made, the Indonesian government can take this opportunity to encourage other prisoners to rehabilitate and change their lives for the better.
Recent campaigns across Australia have echoed that call for mercy. I thank the Australian people for turning out for this cause. Execution is not the answer for this situation and I ask President Jokowi to reverse his decision and save the lives of Andrew and Myuran. I ask him to consider the circumstances of Andrew's and Myuran's rehabilitation particularly. Obviously their suffering is also to be considered, as is the suffering of their families. But their rehabilitation is the key element that should make him commute their sentences to an appropriate term of imprisonment. Please, Mr President, I ask you to consider this.
I do not relish speaking on a motion of this character, because there are the lives of two young Australians that are before us. I want to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the shadow minister for the motion that they have proposed in the House of Representatives today, noting that Chan and Sukumaran are presently imprisoned, the serious nature of their crimes, Australia's abolition of capital punishment, speaking of the genuine remorse demonstrated by both Chan and Sukumaran, their rehabilitation, and the widespread support of the Australian people for commutation of the death sentences imposed on them, and encouraging Indonesia to give consideration to their circumstances and stay their executions.
I was the lead signer of a letter signed by more than 100 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate expressing our view. This is a clear majority of members who feel this way. I had no pleasure in writing the letter, because of the circumstances, but I have been involved with Amnesty International over a long period of time, as has the speaker before me. I was a member some 40 years ago. Opposition to the death penalty and the assertion of the right to life are things that I have always been strongly committed to.
I have continued to push very strongly for the abolition of the death penalty around the world. I reminded some members of the circumstances of a meeting we had on this very issue today. When George Bush Senior first visited Australia, I endeavoured to present to him a petition on this very issue. We take it up with the United States, because we believe that capital punishment is wrong in principle. We take it up with China. We take it up with Iran. We take it up with Saudi Arabia.
I think the most interesting comments in the debate today have been those of the Minister for Foreign Affairs outlining the approach Indonesia takes to this matter when its own citizens abroad are subjected to the possibility of a death penalty. On the information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs, I am told that something of the order of 420 Indonesian nationals have faced a death penalty abroad between 2011 and 2014. They have worked exceedingly hard to seek remission of those penalties for their citizens abroad, and I commend them for that. One hundred and seventy-three of their citizens who have faced the death penalty have been freed. The circumstances in which they were freed have often involved paying moneys—and I understand Indonesia raises the funds—to compensate families of those who may have been adversely affected by the activity of an Indonesian national. On the basis of that compensation, the remission can occur. I do not know what compensation could be paid to secure the release of Chan and Sukumaran, but it is interesting, isn't it, when you think about?
I hold no adverse brief to Indonesia. I want to work with Indonesia. I have said to members of their foreign affairs committee, whom I have met with from time to time, that I would like to work with Indonesia to secure the release of Indonesian nationals sentenced to death, because I believe, in principle, it is wrong. I would like to think that we could have a unity ticket of those of us in public life to produce that change. I continue to reiterate to Indonesia, through its ambassador and through its public officials, my willingness to work with them to save the lives of their nationals where they are at risk.
But in the cases that we are speaking of today, if you actually look at the letter that we wrote to the Indonesian ambassador, it outlines why the circumstances of Chan and Sukumaran are so different, even to those many others who face the death penalty. Indonesia has noted that if people have been held for more than 10 years and have shown good behaviour that can be taken into account. Chan and Sukumaran have been imprisoned for more than 10 years. They have demonstrated, as we say in our letter, genuine remorse. They have worked constructively to rehabilitate not only themselves but others. In that context, in the circumstances that Indonesia have said should be taken into account, in our view the President should have some regard.
As a lawyer, I am interested in these matters and I read today that there is a further appeal. I hope it may have some success—inviting the President to not have a blanket approach to these matters, but to require him to genuinely consider the circumstances of the individuals, which, it is suggested, their law requires. I certainly hope and request—and I reiterate that again—that in the time that is left he may return to this matter. It is not a matter of us wanting to berate Indonesia. It is one in which I hope we can work together, not only to save Chan and Sukumaran but to save the lives of many others who may be at risk of capital punishment.
A number of Australians were killed as a result of a terrorist act in Indonesia, and those responsible were found. When Indonesia sought to execute them, as a matter of principle, I took the view that we should seek clemency for those even though, through their conduct, they had a very adverse impact on many Australians and adversely affected the lives of many of those Australians related.
There is a need for consistency in these matters. I hope that our efforts may bear fruit. If they do not, I hope we can continue to work to try to produce change in the views of national governments around the world, including Indonesia, for the future. The world would be a far better place if we were able to achieve that.
I feel privileged to follow the Chief Government Whip. His contribution to this debate was outstanding and I think got to the core of the issue—as have the contributions of everyone who has spoken in this debate. I was in the House when the minister and the shadow minister moved the motion, and I believe that this is one issue which brings the parliament together. It is an issue that a number of members of this parliament feel passionate about.
I will start my contribution by pleading for mercy for Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, two young men who made a really silly decision, a very bad mistake—a mistake which, if they had been successful, would have led to the loss of many Australian lives. In no way does any member of this parliament sanction their act but, as the Chief Government Whip rightly pointed out, they have been in jail for 10 years and have undergone enormous rehabilitation. They are totally different men to the men who were arrested for a very stupid act that took place such a long time ago. They were men in their early twenties. They were men who did not think of the consequences of their act and did not think of the enormous suffering that the drug trade leads to. These men were caught and punished and have served considerable time in jail. These men have learnt that there is more to life than what they thought at the time of their arrest. Andrew Chan has become a pastor within the jail, helping other people. Myuran Sukumaran is also dedicated to helping other prisoners through his art and helping them to the realisation of who they are and what they are.
I am totally opposed to the death penalty in any form—not only for our Australian citizens but for anyone. To take a person's life is the ultimate denial of human rights. It has been shown that it is not a deterrent; rather, it leads to a situation where you are inflicting pain not only on that person but also on their family, as we have seen in the last few days in Australia with the mothers and the families of both Andrew and Myuran pleading for their lives and making statements. I think it takes away from us as human beings when we take the life of another person. As has been mentioned by many in this debate, an eye for an eye does not resolve the issue. What we need is to work closely with Indonesian government, and other governments throughout the world, to address the issue of drug trafficking—and to address the issue of the death penalty, for that matter.
As has been said by previous speakers, Indonesian prisoners have been held in places throughout the world where the death penalty has been imposed on them and their government has pleaded for clemency—and in many cases that has been granted. We are doing the same here for our Australian citizens. As a member of this parliament, I feel it is imperative that I stand up here and plead for the lives of these two young men. I know that members on both sides have joined together in pleading for mercy and clemency. In doing so we show no disrespect to Indonesia. We recognise their sovereignty, but we also need to put on the record that taking the lives of these two young Australians, who have been rehabilitated and who are helping to rehabilitate others—who, far from being involved in any drug trafficking in jail, have actually worked to stop it happening—would not resolve the issue. I would very much like my support for the motion by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the shadow minister put on record.
I rise to support the motion moved in the House by the Prime Minister, as have all the members who have spoken on this motion. The Australian parliament calls on the government and the President of Indonesia to extend clemency to Sukumaran and Chan. We recognise that the crimes they have committed and were sentenced for were very grave ones—very grave indeed. But we as a nation do not believe that the state should kill people as the end of a judicial process. We do not support the death penalty. We do not condone the crimes that have been committed, but we argue that no state should take the life of its citizens as the consequence of a judicial process. Appropriate terms of imprisonment are, of course, available to the Indonesians. As the foreign minister said in her motion, that is what we recommend should be accorded to them.
Having said that, we respect the Indonesian republic. We respect the Indonesian government, we respect its president, and we respect its laws. We make this plea to them humbly, recognising that Indonesia and the Indonesian people are entitled to manage their own affairs. But the Indonesian government, for example, regularly makes a plea for clemency in respect of its citizens who have been sentenced to death in other countries—most notably, and as is well-known, in Saudi Arabia. To ask for mercy is an important, honourable and loving action; but to grant mercy is the absolute and ultimate expression of love—honourable and strong love. That is what we are asking the Indonesian president to do. We are not asking him to be weak or to back down; we are asking him as a friend, as a dear friend, not to take the lives of these men—who, as I said, have committed terrible crimes—who have sought to rehabilitate themselves. Nonetheless, what we are asking the President to do is to be strong, to be so strong that he can say, 'My love of life overwhelms, trumps, the desire for vengeance, the desire for retribution.' So we are asking the Indonesian President to show love. Some might say that these two men do not deserve it, that they do not deserve to be shown any clemency. The greatest love is that which is shown to those who least deserve it.
Thank you, Minister for Communications, for that very eloquent contribution to the debate.
I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:26