For the information of members, I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation which participated in the 23rd annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Quito, Ecuador, from 10 to 15 January 2015 and the bilateral visit to Peru from 16 to 21 January 2015.
This is the second year that I, as Speaker, have led Australia's delegation to the APPF. The members of the delegation this year comprised the member for Herbert, Mr Ewen Jones; the member for Lalor, Ms Joanne Ryan; Senator the Hon. Ian Macdonald; and Senator Anne McEwen. A delegation from the Australian parliament has participated in every meeting of the APPF as well as the meetings that prepared for the establishment of the forum. The APPF is an organisation that is highly relevant to Australia. The countries that participate are significant to our strategic and economic interests, and the APPF meeting addresses important subject matter. All delegates have an opportunity to develop their understanding of the subject matter and the perspectives of the region's parliaments and each agreement on the resolutions of the meeting.
I now turn to the subject matter of the meeting and the work of the Australian delegation. As is customary, there were three broad subject areas on the agenda—politics and security; economic and trade matters; and regional cooperation—as well as the future work of the APPF. In December 2014, in advance of the annual meeting, the Australian delegation proposed draft resolutions on the five topics that delegation members were to speak on in the plenary. The topics included strengthening peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region; alternative policies and new approaches to combat terrorism and other transnational organised crime; open and non-exclusive cooperation to foster free trade growth, investment and sustainable development; mobility of social rights and a common legislative framework for social protection; and cooperation in disaster prevention.
In addition to our statements in the plenary, delegation members participated actively and effectively in working groups in order to achieve combined draft resolutions to go to the drafting committee. Senator McEwen and I represented the delegation at meetings of the drafting committee, where 18 resolutions were agreed to go to the plenary. The final joint communique of the forum, which was signed by all leaders of all participating nations, included as an attachment the text of the 18 resolutions, seven of which were co-sponsored by Australia.
Following the APPF's 23rd meeting, the delegation undertook a short bilateral visit to Peru. The delegation had the opportunity to meet with the President and members of Peru's congress and to deepen its understanding of Peru's economic priorities and the scope of the Australia-Peru bilateral relationship. The delegation was warmly and courteously received at all meetings and visits. As delegation leader, I was able to take the opportunity to raise with Peru's deputy minister for foreign affairs Peru's support in relation to Australia's management of the Great Barrier Reef at the meeting of the World Heritage Committee in June 2015. The deputy minister indicated he would take an especial interest in the work being done in UNESCO.
I wish to acknowledge the very helpful assistance provided to the delegation in preparation for the meeting. Before departure, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra and the Parliamentary Library assisted us with briefing materials, and the International and Parliamentary Relations Office provided logistical support. In Ecuador, Australia's ambassador, Mr Tim Kane, and staff and, in Peru, Ambassador Mr Nicholas McCaffrey and staff provided excellent advice and support. My thanks are also extended to my chief of staff, Mr Damien Jones, and the delegation secretary, Ms Robyn McClelland. I believe that the delegation represented the parliament most effectively.
I wish to inform the House that, in accordance with standing order 222A(a)(viii), the House Appropriations and Administration Committee met on Monday to consider Parliament House security upgrade works—perimeter security enhancements. As chair of this committee, and in accordance with this standing order, I now report to the House on the committee's consideration of the matter and its recommendation.
As honourable members will see from the papers that were tabled on Monday in relation to this motion, the proposed works are for security enhancements which include a fence, a gatehouse facility, replacement of window framing and glazing, and additional vehicle bollards at the perimeter of the southern entrance to Parliament House in line with bollards already in place at other entrances. Honourable members will see that the designs and visual representations of the proposed works are included in these tabled papers.
The committee received a briefing from the officers of the Department of Parliamentary Services, which has overall carriage of these building works. This briefing explained the proposed works in detail and the need for the works to strengthen and enhance the existing physical security framework at Parliament House.
In its deliberations, the committee noted the importance of balancing security with access to Parliament House, which is rightly known as the people's house. The committee also observed the importance of preserving the valuable and unique heritage of Parliament House, and noted that, accordingly, the Presiding Officers have instructed DPS to ensure that the final design solution, including all structures, finishes, colours and placement, considers and supports the central reference document, conservation management plan and design principles documents.
The committee recognised the importance of these works and therefore resolved to recommend to the House that it support this motion to agree to the works.
I move:
That, in accordance with Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approve the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 23 March 2015 namely: Parliament House security upgrade works—Perimeter security enhancements.
In light of the remarks I have just made, I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the standing orders be amended as follows:
63A Ministerial statements
When the House has granted a Minister leave to make a ministerial statement, the House shall be deemed to have granted leave for the Leader of the Opposition, or Member representing, to speak in response to the statement for an equal amount of time.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the House adopt the following resolution:
(1) The House permits Members’ use of electronic devices in the Chamber, Federation Chamber and committees, provided that:
(a) use of any device avoids interference or distraction to other Members, either visually or audibly, and does not interfere with proceedings—in particular, phone calls are not permitted and devices should be operated in silent mode;
(b) devices are not used to record the proceedings (either by audio or visual means);
(c) communication on social media regarding private meetings of committees or in camera hearings will be considered a potential breach of privilege; and
(d) the use of devices is as unobtrusive as possible and is directly related to the Members’ parliamentary duties; and
(2) The House notes that:
(a) communication via electronic devices, whether in the Chamber or not, is unlikely to be covered by parliamentary privilege; and
(b) reflections on the Chair by Members made on social media may be treated as matters of order just as any such reflections made inside or outside the Chamber.
In September last year, the Procedure Committee completed its inquiry into the use of electronic devices in the chamber and the Federation Chamber. One of the key findings of this report was that no specific standing orders refer to the use of electronic devices in the chamber.
The report recommended adopting a resolution which outlines a number of common-sense provisions for the use of electronic devices: the use must avoid interference with or distraction of other members and proceedings; the device must not record proceedings; social media communication regarding private meetings or in-camera hearings will be considered a potential breach of privilege; and the use must be as unobtrusive as possible. Use of these devices is only increasing, and it is for the benefit and clarity of members that the resolution as circulated is recommended. I thank the Procedure Committee for its work in this area and the opposition for their support.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Defence Legislation (Enhancement of Military Justice) Bill 2015 will amend legislation relating to the military justice system. The bill contains a number of modest but important amendments and reforms to the Defence Act 1903, the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Act (No. 1) 2009.
Schedule 1 of this bill clarifies the legal character and status of service convictions, by providing that a service offence is an offence against the law of the Commonwealth. It also provides for the situations in which convictions may be disclosed under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982.
The bill creates two new service offences, namely that of 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm' and 'unauthorised use of a Commonwealth credit card'. These two offences did exist previously. However, it is necessary to convert the offences into service offences to ensure that they can be appropriately prosecuted. The bill clarifies the elements of the existing service offence of 'commanding or ordering a service offence to be committed', thereby ensuring that an abuse of military authority can be appropriately dealt with by commanders.
Additionally, the bill replaces the system of recognisance release orders with a system of fixing nonparole periods. This will overcome the problems associated with the ad hoc nature of service tribunals, allowing discipline to be tempered in the imposition of punishments. The bill also replaces the system of fines for persons who are not a member of the Defence Force with a penalty units system, which aligns this form of punishment with contemporary practice in the criminal justice system.
Furthermore, the bill corrects several technical errors which limit the ability of commanding officers to refer charges to the Director of Military Prosecutions. This will also assist warrant officers and senior noncommissioned officers in properly dealing with minor breaches of discipline.
Schedule 2 of the bill provides for the statutory recognition of the Director of Defence Counsel Services. The position is a senior military legal officer who is appointed by the Chief of the Defence Force and is responsible, among other things, for managing the provision of legal representation to accused persons.
The bill also contains several machinery provisions that will assist the Director of Defence Counsel Services in the discharge of their statutory duties, as well as some minor technical changes.
In relation to schedule 3, the bill provides for the extension for another two years of the appointment of the current Chief Judge Advocate and the full-time judge advocate. The judge advocates are senior military legal officers appointed by the Judge Advocate General to either assist court martial members with the application of military law or to sit as Defence Force magistrates in the trial of accused persons. Judge advocates are therefore central to the proper operation of the superior tribunals.
The extension of these appointments will allow the superior tribunals to continue operating while consideration is given to further reforms of the military discipline system.
The bill contains a number of modest but important changes to the military discipline system and the overarching military justice system. The amendments and reforms demonstrate, once again, this government's commitment to the security and defence of Australia and its interests. Moreover, these amendments signal this government's commitment to modernising the military discipline system.
I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill now be read a second time.
This bill contains measures to clarify the questioning powers of the Australian Crime Commission and the Integrity Commissioner.
This bill will help to ensure that the Crime Commission, Integrity Commissioner and the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity have access to necessary and appropriate powers so that they can play their part in the fight against serious and organised crime, foreign fighters and law enforcement corruption.
At the same time, the bill will strengthen checks and safeguards on examinations and hearings, to strike an appropriate balance between giving law enforcement and integrity agencies the powers they need to keep our community safe, and the need to preserve the fundamental right to a fair trial.
Background to examination and hearing powers
Examinations and hearings are crucial to the operations of the Crime Commission and Integrity Commissioner. A person questioned in an examination or hearing cannot hide behind the privilege against self-incrimination. They must answer all questions put to them. This enables the Crime Commission and the Integrity Commissioner to obtain information that would not otherwise be available through traditional policing and investigative tools.
Access to these powers is particularly important in the fight against serious and organised crime and systemic corruption. Groups and individuals involved in these activities are well-funded, actively attempt to frustrate investigations and are skilled at countering law enforcement methods to avoid detection.
The Crime Commission, the Integrity Commissioner and ACLEI use the information obtained through these questioning powers for a range of important law enforcement purposes, including to progress investigations, to develop, analyse and disseminate intelligence to partner agencies, to address systemic vulnerabilities in organisations, and to disrupt the operations of organised criminal groups, like outlaw motorcycle gangs.
These are significant powers that override the right to silence. However, they are vital to law enforcement's ability to investigate, prevent and disrupt some of the most serious criminal activity.
Examinations and hearings are already subject to a number of checks and safeguards to balance these interests. This bill will strengthen these, and strike an appropriate balance between giving law enforcement agencies the powers they need to keep us safe, and the need to preserve the fundamental right to a fair trial.
Impact of recent cases
A number of recent court cases have affected the way these agencies can use their existing questioning powers. These cases include X7 and the Australian Crime Commission, Lee and the NSW Crime Commission, Lee against the Queen, and the Queen against Seller and McCarthy.
These decisions have had a significant negative impact on the operations of the Crime Commission and the Integrity Commissioner.
For example, following the decision in X7, the Crime Commission has stopped examining anyone who had been charged with an offence where the questioning might touch on the subject matter of the charges. This has already prevented the Crime Commission from obtaining valuable intelligence about the methodologies and activities of those involved in serious criminal activity, including recruiters and facilitators of foreign fighters and their links with other individuals.
Measures in the bill
The bill I am introducing today will respond to X7 and other relevant cases, by amending the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 and the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 to place the Crime Commission and Integrity Commissioner's powers on a stronger footing.
The bill will make a number of changes to these Acts to clarify the nature and use of these powers, which I will go through in turn.
The bill will expressly authorise the Crime Commission and Integrity Commissioner to question a person who has been charged with an offence, which was the original intention behind those acts.
This has been an important power in the past. It has been used to question arrested paedophiles and child pornographers about the identities and locations of their victims. It has allowed law enforcement agencies to obtain a detailed understanding of contemporary drug-trafficking techniques and to identify the individuals involved in those illicit activities. It has been used to weed out the insidious influence of corruption in our law enforcement agencies and make them more resilient.
The bill will also expressly authorise the use of derivative material obtained from an examination or hearing, and set out the circumstances in which examination, hearing and derivative material may be provided to a prosecutor.
These amendments are necessary to ensure that the Crime Commission, the Integrity Commissioner and their partners have clear authority to continue to take action based on material obtained from examinations and hearings. The bill will also expressly allow this material to be disclosed to investigators and others so that it can be used to gather additional evidence (that is, derivative material) to support the prosecution of the person.
This bill will also more clearly authorise the Crime Commission to conduct examinations in the context of ongoing confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and set out when that material may be used in those proceedings. These changes respond to recommendations 3 and 4 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's 2012 inquiry into unexplained wealth. This delivers on the government's election commitment to implement the outstanding recommendations of the committee's report.
The bill will make the same changes to the Integrity Commissioner's powers, and bolster the ability of Australia's law enforcement and integrity agencies to target criminals where it hurts most—their illicit wealth.
While these amendments will more clearly set out the ways in which examination, hearing and derivative material may be disclosed and used, these measures contain a number of important safeguards.
They will ensure that any use or disclosure of examination, hearing and derivative material will not prejudice a person's safety or their fair trial—one of the fundamental tenets of our criminal justice system.
The amendments to both the Crime Commission Act and the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act will more clearly set out the circumstances in which examination and hearing material can and cannot be disclosed.
The bill will place specific limits on the circumstances when examination material, hearing material and derivative material can be provided to the prosecution. In some cases, an investigator will have to seek a court's permission to disclose this material to the prosecution. The court will decide whether disclosure would be in the interests of justice.
The bill also makes it clear that courts retain their powers to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial.
The amendments will protect the right to a fair trial of a person questioned by the Crime Commission or the Integrity Commissioner. They will ensure that law enforcement agencies can carry on their important role of fighting organised crime and corrupt elements within our law enforcement agencies without unfairly impacting upon the fundamental rights of the accused.
The amendments will also confirm that the Crime Commission's and Integrity Commissioner's coercive questioning powers can only be used for the specific purposes set out in legislation. That is, for the purposes of a Crime Commission special intelligence operation or special investigation, or for an investigation into a law enforcement corruption issue. For example, the amendments to the Crime Commission Act will more clearly identify that an examination always occurs in support of a special operation or special investigation. In some instances, material from an examination may assist in a prosecution or confiscation proceeding. However, the primary purpose of an examination is not to bolster the case against the person being examined, but rather to gather information for the purpose of understanding, disrupting or preventing serious and organised crime.
Finally, the bill will also increase the penalties for breaching non-disclosure obligations relating to examinations and hearings so that they are consistent with similar Commonwealth offences.
Conclusion
The powers of the Crime Commission and the Integrity Commissioner are significant. But so too are the challenges posed by serious and organised crime and its enabler, corruption. Serious and organised criminals exploit every advantage they can. The questioning powers of the Crime Commission and the Integrity Commissioner go some way to levelling the playing field.
This bill will ensure that those agencies have the questioning powers they need, and that the information they gather can be put to maximum use to protect the community. It will do so in a way that upholds fundamental principles of our criminal justice system about the right to a fair trial.
Without these amendments, the Crime Commission and the Integrity Commissioner will struggle to fulfil their mandates and protect the community. They are vital to law enforcement's ability to understand, disrupt and prevent some of the most serious criminal activity.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Almost a year ago today, I provided a statement in this House on the critical issues facing Norfolk Island.
Today, I introduce a bill that seeks to resolve these issues through a range of significant changes.
Norfolk Island is a small and remote community with a population of around 1,800 people.
Like any remote community, Norfolk Island has challenges in terms of service delivery, infrastructure maintenance and economic growth.
However, on Norfolk Island these challenges have only been magnified by a unique set of governance arrangements.
Under arrangements established in 1979, the Norfolk Island government is required to deliver all local, state and many federal services—more than any other government in Australia.
It is not reasonable to expect such a small and remote community to deliver these responsibilities effectively.
It is no surprise that services on Norfolk Island are now well below the standard Australians typically expect.
In fact, there is almost a complete absence of the health and social services most Australians take for granted.
For instance, Norfolk Island is the only place in Australia where Australian citizens do not receive social security benefits and do not fully participate in the Australian taxation system.
Norfolk Island's problems are not new, but they are now critical.
There has been no significant infrastructure investment since the 1970s, and the Norfolk Island government has not had the capacity to maintain what was built then, or earlier.
The Island's Hospital is outdated.
The roads are deteriorating.
And the island's electricity network is at risk of collapse.
The financial position of the Norfolk Island government is also dire.
The Australian government has provided in excess of $40 million in assistance since 2010 to keep essential services operating.
But this assistance has not dealt with the underlying problems.
The bills introduced today provide the structural reform needed to strengthen Norfolk Island and ensure its sustainability.
From 1 July 2016, the Norfolk Island community will have access to social security payments.
From 1 July 2016, Norfolk Island residents will pay income tax and other direct federal taxes on all of their income, not just their income sourced from the mainland.
Federal taxes will replace a range of inefficient taxes and charges currently levied by the Norfolk Island government.
This includes a local goods and services tax and punitive customs charges. Both of these will be removed.
The Australian government will also extend the superannuation guarantee to Norfolk Island, to allow future generations to save for their retirement.
To minimise the impact on business, the guarantee will be phased in over the next twelve years.
Economic modelling has shown that the long term impact of these changes will be overwhelmingly positive.
According to the Centre of International Economics, gross territory product is projected to increase by around 25 per cent, and household consumption will go up by 52 per cent.
However, the full application of Australia's social security and taxation system alone does not address the longstanding need for governance reform.
The need for governance reform is well recognised and has been the subject of numerous reports, inquiries and submissions over the last four decades.
Most recently, the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories concluded that governance and economic reform must occur together to give the community the greatest chance of recovery.
The committee's strong and bipartisan recommendation was that the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly be transitioned to a regional council.
The bill I am introducing today will achieve this.
Following the bill's commencement, the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly and Executive Council will be dissolved, and a local advisory council appointed to represent community views.
From 1 July 2016, a Norfolk Island Regional Council will be established to deliver an extended range of local services.
This council will be elected by islanders to represent islanders.
Under this model local issues will be driven at the local level wherever possible, without placing unreasonable expectations on this small and remote community.
From 1 July 2016, New South Wales laws will gradually be applied on Norfolk Island to provide a modern body of state law.
The Australian government will also negotiate with the New South Wales government to expand the range of services it currently provides.
Other federal services will also be extended.
From 1 July 2016, the Australian migration system will replace the immigration arrangements currently maintained by the Norfolk Island government.
This will remove a key barrier to tourism and trade, and simplify travel arrangements significantly.
Customs and biosecurity services will also be provided by Australian government agencies.
These changes will bring Norfolk Island in line with other Australian communities and ensure services are delivered to a modern standard by the appropriate level of government.
Although common sense, these reforms represent significant change for the local community.
Ultimately, our goal is to put Norfolk Island on a more sustainable footing.
It is about delivering growth and prosperity and protecting Norfolk Island's cultural identity and rich heritage for generations to come.
I would like to thank the community for its active engagement to date and for showing such strong support for the reforms being implemented today.
The Australian government will continue to engage closely with the community during this process and into the future.
We are committed to doing what is needed to deliver a better future for all Australians, regardless of where they live.
I commend the bill to the House
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island Reforms) Bill 2015 amends taxation and superannuation legislation to fully apply Australia's income tax, Medicare Levy and superannuation guarantee system to Norfolk Island.
The bill will see the taxation system apply to Norfolk Island in the same way it currently applies to mainland Australia, with the exception of indirect taxes including the GST, customs duty and excise duties.
This bill will establish transitional arrangements which phase in the superannuation guarantee over the next twelve years.
This bill also establishes transitional arrangements in respect of capital gains tax. This will ensure that Norfolk Islanders are only taxed on capital gains that accrue from 1 July 2016.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Amendment Bill 2015 makes consequential amendments to A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999.
These amendments support the repeal of the Medicare levy exemptions provided for by the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island Reforms) Bill 2015.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2015 supports the extension of the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 to Norfolk Island.
The bill ensures that Medicare benefits, nursing home benefits or residential care subsidies are recoverable from persons on Norfolk Island who receive compensation or damages through a judgement or settlement.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
The Health Insurance (Approved Pathology Specimen Collection Centres) Tax Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2015 will ensure that the tax on the grant of an approval for a specimen collection centre under the Health Insurance Act 1973 and, for related purposes, also applies to persons who reside on Norfolk Island.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
The Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2015 works with the Health Insurance Act 1973, which is being amended in the Norfolk Island Legislation Reform Bill 2015.
This bill relates to the fees payable for certain purposes of the Health Insurance Act 1973, such as the acceptance of an approved pathology authority undertaking and the approval of premises as an accredited pathology laboratory.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
The Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2015 relates to the imposition of levies in respect of certain obligations to refund accommodation payment balances, and for related purposes.
This bill is part of the broader Norfolk Island reform package, which implements the government's election commitment to fully apply mainland taxation and social security to Norfolk Island.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
The Private Health Insurance (Risk Equalisation Levy) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2015 relates to the broader Norfolk Island reform legislative package which is being implemented through the Norfolk Island Legislation Reform Bill 2015.
The Private Health Insurance (Risk Equalisation Levy) Act imposes a risk equalisation levy on private health insurers, and for related purposes.
The act is part of the private health insurance arrangements which exist on mainland Australia, which are to be extended to Norfolk Island through the Norfolk Island Legislation Reform Bill 2015.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I am a passionate supporter of the good work of the minister at the table, who did such great things for Norfolk Island. On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee's Report 147: treaties tabled on 18 June, 24 November, 2 December 2014 and 25 February 2015.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The report contains the committee's views on three proposed treaties: the World Trade Organization protocol amending the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, including the agreement on trade facilitation; the first protocol to amend the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area; and the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between Australia and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.
The WTO agreement on trade facilitation is an important step towards forming and developing a multilateral trade system. It is a significant milestone—the first major agreement concluded since the WTO was established in 1995. The aim of the agreement is to increase transparency and remove red tape relating to customs regulations and procedures across international boundaries. It is estimated that, if the agreement is fully implemented, it could add US$1 trillion to the world economy and create 21 million jobs by cutting trade costs.
It is vitally important for Australian businesses and industry to benefit from this global economy. Despite the hard work being done to remove tariff barriers, it is often the behind-the-scenes, non-tariff barriers that discourage trade participation. Complex paperwork, or the fear that perishable goods will be held up in foreign ports, can stop an Australian business from taking advantage of the opportunities provided by trade agreements. This agreement will make a difference in this regard.
The ASEAN-Australian-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement is Australia's largest free trade agreement, accounting for 18 per cent of our total trade in goods and services, worth $121.6 billion in 2013-14. With a combined population of 650 million people, the parties to this agreement account for $4.1 billion of global GDP. It is important that Australian businesses and industry can make full use of the agreement.
The amendments to the agreement are designed to simplify and harmonise administrative requirements. Again, the paperwork will be simpler and easier to fill out and to comply with. By making trade easier for Australian exporters and importers, the amendments are expected to encourage better use of the agreement.
Mutual assistance treaties develop and strengthen Australia's capacity to fight international crime. Currently Australia is party to 29 such agreements. The treaty on mutual legal assistance between Australia and Vietnam provides for the two countries to exchange information and evidence for investigating or prosecuting serious crimes. It will make sure that criminals cannot evade justice solely because evidence of their criminal activity is located in another country. Vietnam already has a valuable Australian partner in the fight against transnational crime in our region, and this agreement will strengthen that relationship. This agreement will complement existing treaties between the two countries on extradition and transfer of sentenced persons.
The committee supports the ratification of all of these three treaties. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I also wish to make a short statement in connection with this report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. There are two issues arising from this report which I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on to the House. The first arises from the outbreak of hepatitis A in Victoria and New South Wales linked to imported frozen berries.
We need to be vigilant in our monitoring of imported food. AUSVEG has expressed concern to me, and no doubt to others, that on some occasions Australian monitoring and inspection arrangements are more onerous than those which apply to imported food. The committee asked the department whether this agreement would have any effect on Australia's control of its sanitary and phytosanitary obligations. We were told that this agreement would not in any way undermine our quarantine standards or our capacity to set those standards.
Certainly in the course of submissions made to the committee, AUSVEG expressed concern about how the existing arrangements are being implemented. One of the points that they make is that only something like five per cent of imported fruits and vegetables are referred for inspection, and that no fruit or vegetable products have been placed in the high-risk category, which is where the 100 per cent inspection regime applies. So we end up with a situation where very few imported fruits and vegetables are actually inspected. While there are paperwork audit requirements, in practice there is very little in the way of checking undertaken.
The other issue which they raised in relation to this is country-of-origin labelling. They have proposed the introduction of a mandatory representative label on the front of packaging to represent what proportion of the product is composed of Australian ingredients and an increase in the size of country-of-origin labelling to ensure that it is 40 per cent bigger than surrounding text, with those sorts of changes to be phased in over 12 months to minimise the cost impact on business.
It is the case that most people—I think in surveys it has been something like 85 per cent—want to buy Australian food, for health reasons, for environmental reasons or simply in order to support Australian farmers and Australian food producers. There is widespread public concern that the 'made in' claim used to identify where processing costs are incurred has in fact been used to mislead consumers about the source of the product and that the ambiguity present in the claim of 'local and imported ingredients' is used to obscure the origin of imports and amounts to a loophole which ought to be removed.
AUSVEG has advised me that in the European Union there are country-of-origin labelling laws. In the UK there are country-of-origin labelling laws. In the United States, food retailers must display the country of origin of fresh fruit and vegetables, amongst other foods. It is similar in Canada and there are requirements in places like Japan and Russia as well.
One of the questions in relation to country-of-origin labelling is whether there is a threat to this from other trade agreements—not the one that is before the House now but, for example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The detail of this is not publicly known, but it is a clear risk, as identified by Michael Moore of the Public Health Association, that under this agreement a foreign company may be able to sue the Australian government for loss of revenue as a result of Australian products being given an unfair advantage. I want to draw that issue to the attention of the House, because I think it is a point well made and an important issue.
The second thing that I want to draw to the attention of the House arising from this report relates to our agreement with Vietnam for mutual assistance in criminal cases, to which the committee chair referred. Vietnam retains the death penalty for serious crimes, including drug offences, and of course Australia has a longstanding policy of opposition to the death penalty.
The committee asked questions about this aspect of the agreement. Under the agreement, parties may refuse assistance if the request relates to an offence punishable by the death penalty, unless the requesting party undertakes that the death penalty will not be imposed or will not be carried out. We received appropriate responses and assurances in relation to that. There is a distinction between circumstances in which a person has been charged, arrested or convicted and the circumstances before that—in particular, between matters that are being dealt with by the Australian Federal Police or other agencies and those that come to the attention of the minister. The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, which we are talking about here, only refers to formal government-to-government mutual assistance requests. In terms of agency-to-agency requests, the circumstances in which the Australian Federal Police would provide assistance are governed by the AFP national guidelines on death penalty assistance.
The national guidelines were revised in 2009. They do not prohibit information being provided in circumstances which could give rise to the death penalty but they do set out factors to be considered and processes to be followed. A whole series of guidelines are in place, which are important. Nevertheless, I draw to the attention of the House that, going back some time, in treaties committee report No. 91, which concerned assistance between Australia and United Arab Emirates, the treaties committee recommended to the government that the instructions—the guidelines, in these cases—should prevent the exchange of information with another country if doing so would expose an Australian citizen to the death penalty. That recommendation was not acted on—although I accept that the guidelines have been revised—and it does seem to be desirable that we move to that position.
I support the report of the treaties committee and commend it to the House.
I present a report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, I present the committee's report entitled Tax Disputes, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Disputes between taxpayers and the Australian Taxation Office are an unavoidable feature of our tax system. This inquiry has come about because stakeholders and taxpayers have expressed deep concern that the tax office does not always use its powers in a judicious manner and does not always treat taxpayers fairly and with respect. The committee acknowledges there have been improvements. Over the past four years, the tax office has demonstrated a trend to settle matters earlier. The current commissioner has embarked on a project of reinventing the tax office. However, the severity of outcomes for some taxpayers convinced the committee that an inquiry was warranted.
The committee commenced the inquiry in June 2014 with a focus on small taxpayers and individuals. The committee requested the Inspector-General of Taxation to conduct a similar inquiry concentrating on large taxpayers and high-wealth individuals. One of the key issues in the inquiry was the degree of separation between auditors and objection officers. Over the last 20 years, both of these functions have been within the compliance area of the tax office. The committee received evidence that objection decisions are now less likely to demonstrate independence or that a taxpayer's matter has been freshly examined.
Recently, objections for entities with a turnover above $100 million annually have been transferred to the legal area in the tax office. The committee's recommendations build on this reform. The committee believes that an additional second commissioner should be created that manages objections and appeals and that there should be stricter controls on communications between auditors and objection officers. This has been a prior recommendation of the Inspector-General of Taxation in relation to large taxpayers and high-wealth individuals.
Another important matter is how the tax office manages cases involving fraud and evasion or alleged fraud and evasion. The committee received evidence that auditors sometimes allege fraud or evasion without turning their mind to the question of whether fraud or evasion actually exists. The taxpayer then has the burden of proof against an allegation for which the tax office may have had only limited evidence. The committee believes that findings or allegations of fraud or evasion should only be made by an officer from the Senior Executive Service. The committee would also like to see the burden of proof on these issues switch back to the commissioner once the statutory record-keeping period for taxpayers has expired.
Two other major issues in the inquiry were that the tax office occasionally refuses to engage with taxpayers and that the tax office can sometimes make unreasonable requests for information from taxpayers in terms of both volume and deadlines. The committee has made recommendations to address both of these issues.
Many people contributed to this inquiry. I would especially like to thank the previous chair of the committee, the member for Bennelong. This member's leadership helped establish the committee and contributed to the quality of the evidence and goodwill during the inquiry. I would also like to thank the Inspector-General for conducting his review of disputes from the perspective of large taxpayers and high-wealth individuals The Inspector-General's report was released last month and the committee has referred to it at various points in this report. Further, the Inspector-General has built up a body of work that the committee was able to refer to during the inquiry. The committee has taken the opportunity to reiterate some of the Inspector-General's prior recommendations. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members and the individuals and organisations who assisted the committee by making submissions and giving evidence. Finally, on behalf of my fellow committee members, I would like to thank Mr David Monk and the staff at the secretariat of the Committee on Tax and Revenue for their commitment and diligence throughout this inquiry. The committee believes that the tax office is a well run, highly professional organisation and that the vast majority of disputes are handled in an appropriate and fair manner. The committee does not wish to see this report as lessening the tax office's role in collecting revenue legally due. However, there is scope for improvement and full implementation of the committee's recommendations will produce a fairer tax system, leading to better outcomes for taxpayers and also for the tax office. I commend the report to the House.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
On behalf of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, I present the report concerning the registration and declaration of members' interests during 2014. I also table copies of notifications of alterations of interests receiving during the period 3 December 2014 to 24 March 2015.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation's field visit to Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, and ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
This was the inaugural visit of its type by the Australian parliament. The visit was of a format designed to allow myself and the Opposition Whip, Mr Hayes, to explore and examine a particular issue. This issue was really not one, as we thought about how a field visit might progress, that would be described as a jolly or a junket to a European destination, or to talk with our close friends in the United States; this was to look at a very significant humanitarian issue of concern facing this world right now.
The theme of the visit was about asylum seekers and to have an understanding of the current conflicts in Syria and Iraq, which have resulted in the movement of large numbers of people into their neighbouring countries. We had the opportunity of visiting Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, and to see the impact that this crisis is having in those countries. You will find an acknowledgement of the very large numbers of people involved, those serving the international community, those involved in the governments of the respective countries and our officials that we met in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. I found this extraordinarily insightful and I am glad we had the opportunity at the end of last year on our return to hold a forum and to brief members on this conflict.
The conflict began only some four years ago and it has had an enormous impact. Something in the order of 191,000 have been killed as a result of this conflict. As at November last year, an estimated 10.6 million to 10.8 million people were in need of humanitarian assistance inside Syria, and this included approximately 6.5 million people internally displaced, and another 2.9 to 3.2 millions Syrians registered and awaiting registration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the adjoining countries.
This conflict has led to an extraordinary increase in the numbers of refugees and displaced people. When you look at the comparative figures and the way in which they have increased, we have seen from 2010 the UNHCR reporting 33.9 million people of concern globally. When you look at this particular conflict, it has added to those numbers so significantly that they have gone to 46.3 million people of concern.
In this report, you will find some very insightful discussions about resolving this crisis. The conclusion that we have drawn is that there is unlikely to be any quick resolution. This problem is going to continue and there are various suggestions as to how you might be able to deal with it. But I think people need to understand that it has reached such a crisis point now that adjoining countries like Lebanon and Jordan, and even Turkey, are looking at closing their borders, restricting the opportunities for people to flee. Turkish officials have been talking about trying to create safe zones in Syria, which they describe as no-fly buffer zones, to which people might flee. Approaches like this are hardly likely to have any impact.
If members read the report, they will find some interesting photographs, showing how close we got to situations of potential danger. But these are risks that are facing millions of people in this area everyday. One of the issues we have looked at is not only how the international community should be responding to this situation—a situation which I think is almost out of sight, out of mind to most Australians. But with the prospect of borders being closed in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, the international community is going to have ask how is it going to continue to see a situation where people can seek sanctuary. I was a minister at the time when Australia had to look at this same sort of issue in relation to the Balkans and what was happening in Kosovo. Members may remember that because of the prospect of borders being closed in Albania, the international community, in order to encourage it to still receive people, had to recognise that there was a need for potential burden sharing.
One of the recommendations that my colleague and I have made in this report is that the delegation does recommend that the Australian government explore, with international partners, a Kosovo-type solution for providing medium-term protection for displaced people in the Middle East. From my own experience in sitting down and talking to young people in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey who had fled, they were still saying, 'Our objective is to be able to return home.' But unless there is some immediate prospect of people being able to return home, that is highly unlikely. If borders are likely to be closed, the international community has to look further at how it may be able to respond to these issues.
We have highlighted in this report the problem that children, and so many of the people who have fled are children, are facing. You will find in the report some of the schools that we visited and the situations where the international community is responding, but what the report does bring out is that they are only a small proportion of the young people displaced. We are likely to see generations of young people denied formal education because they have had to flee and the international community and neighbouring countries have not been able to put in place appropriate arrangements. This prompted us to look at the question of the way in which Australia might be able to help, and the delegation recommends that the Australian government acknowledge the value and importance of education for child refugees and work with its international partners to support efforts to provide free and effective education to child refugees in the Middle East.
It is not enough to expect that Lebanon is going to be able to take refugee children when you understand that Lebanon, with a population of a little over three million people, has 1½ million refugees. Just imagine if, in every one of our schools tomorrow, for every student we had possibly another student from a refugee background entering the school who needed assistance. Just imagine what pressure it would put on our institutions. These countries are facing enormous problems in being able to respond in a positive way to this situation.
The report details something of the way in which the countries that we have mentioned have been responding, but it highlights the need for further international support for Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, which are under such horrific pressure. We recommend that the Australian government do its part in sharing the burden of the crisis in the Middle East and make appropriate commitments in the upcoming UNHCR pledging conference because these particular countries are going to need support.
I have travelled extensively in this region before and I know something of Lebanon, something of Jordan and something of Turkey, and the extent to which people in these surrounding countries are burdened needs to be acknowledged and understood. We are not experiencing people seeking to flee to Australia as asylum seekers as a result of this issue, but it should not in any way diminish our willingness to respond to this report and to look at ways and means in which Australia can help those countries, who are particularly burdened at this time.
by leave—Together with the member for Berowra, the Father of the House, I had the honour of attending this first parliamentary field visit to Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. In fairness to the member for Berowra, his view, that he successfully argued amongst the committee considering this, is that the position in the Middle East at the moment, the conflict that is unfolding, is likely to affect decisions throughout the globe, including those of Australia, for some time into the future. Therefore, if we are to be serious in looking at issues such as asylum seekers, we should actually look clearly at those aspects that are right at the crux of this, particularly as they occur at the moment in the Middle East.
This is a conflict that started in 2011. It started as a protest movement and has developed into a full-scale civil war. It is no longer just impacting on the people of Syria or those throughout the Middle East; this conflict has implications globally. We have seen much reported about the fragmentation of the Free Syrian Army and we now see the involvement of ISIS, or Daesh as it is referred to. We have been advised by many in the UN that various remnants of the former Ba'athist-led Iraqi military are engaged. The point is that this escalation of the conflict was beyond the estimations of all the authorities at that time.
When we visited, and particularly when we first went to Jordan and visited the refugee camps there, they showed us two styles of their camps. The one that was originally established to accommodate this crisis was planned for a period not extending beyond three months because the expectations of the United Nations was that this conflict would not exceed three months. What we have now is a conflict where there is no end in sight, and certainly it probably will not involve a military solution. We particularly wanted to look at the consequences of this for the people.
In terms of refugees, Syria has a population of 12 million people. More than half of that population is now displaced. We know that there have been, by this stage, probably 200,000 people killed in that conflict. We know also, from the UN, that over half the international aid budget at the moment is directed to the displaced people and the Syrian refugees—over half of the total world aid budget is now directed there, for a conflict which would not, it was originally thought, extend beyond three months.
The other thing that was just painfully obvious to us was that the countries bordering Syria—namely, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon—are hosting the vast majority of refugees: according to the UN, in the vicinity of 97 per cent. Jordan, I think, are hosting a little over 600,000 refugees—almost 20 per cent of their country. Turkey are hosting, I think, about 1.3 million refugees. And the Father of the House has just indicated that Lebanon, a country of close to four million people, hosts almost two million refugees. That would be, in an Australian context, like us having about 12 million refugees temporarily on our doorstep and needing education and health care and all the assistance that would generally apply.
These are countries with very limited budgets. They all indicated the economic strain that they were facing. The consequences of this development meant that, in many instances, a number of the companies in their areas were getting rid of or terminating locally engaged employees and putting on Syrian refugees because, essentially, they would work almost just for food—and I can understand that, if you were that desperate, you probably would. But it is also leading to very significant resentment in those host countries at the moment. Populations of those host countries are at the sharp end of this, relatively unassisted by the international community. I know there is assistance there, but certainly not proportionate to the load that they are carrying—a humanitarian load, for which we, in the global community, are all very much in their debt.
I will speak of one personal experience from visiting over there. We did not simply spend time in the refugee camps and see the children, which I will come back to, but at one stage we visited the Jordanian border guards and their headquarters, adjacent to the Syrian border. They were very pleasant; they were very kind to us. They were very hospitable and treated us to a nice lunch. There was fantastic scenery. They could point out the border of Syria. Here was this town, some 10 kilometres away, I think, Father of the House. Anyway, we agreed, together with the Australian ambassador, to do a piece to camera with the leadership of the Syrian border guard. So we went outside, and they set up their tripods and got their cameras set. As we were speaking to camera, people behind the camera—the audience, if you like—started pointing behind us. They could see smoke plumes going up. And, as we turned around, we felt the percussion from the explosions. There was an artillery attack taking place on a town some 10 kilometres away. So, while we were being hosted by the Jordanian border guard, and were there, in safety, we knew that, 10 kilometres away from us, people were being killed. That really brought home to us how significant this is. This is not something you could just disengage from and say, 'This was just another visit we had, and we will report this when we get back to our parliament.' This was a visit from which you could not come away unaffected.
As the member for Berowra indicated, we did visit refugee camps everywhere we went, and one of the consistent things that was put to us by everyone we spoke to, through interpreters, was that they wanted to go home. That was all they wanted: they wanted to go home. But, as I said earlier, there is no end in sight to this conflict.
The children that we visited there, the lucky children that we visited, were in tent classrooms. They had very dedicated teachers there, trying to address their issues. Many of these kids obviously come in with social and emotional baggage, so they are addressing that but also trying to continue these Syrian children's education. In Syria they had a very well established, well developed education system. But the truth is that the kids that Philip Ruddock and I saw were the lucky kids. Even though they were in tents—some sitting on floors; some just sitting at small tables—they were the lucky kids, because the vast majority of children will not be receiving an education. Their education under the former Syrian system has been interrupted, and, in many cases, discontinued.
Unfortunately for a majority of these kids, they are going to be the expendable assets for some other jihadist of tomorrow. They have no hope, no education, and no prospect of being part of an effort to rebuild their towns and cities. There is nothing in sight. I have to say: for anyone who has kids or grandkids, this is something very palpable. One thing that we all must stay focused on is providing a future for them. A future has to be provided for these children.
I think the member for Berowra is right in indicating that, in the next pledging round, Australia must accept its responsibility. Part of that goes back to our having been, indelibly, part of this development in the Middle East since 2003. We were part of the coalition of the willing that went into Iraq. This has had its genesis not necessarily in the protest movements in Syria but in what occurred in Iraq. In the Middle East it is not just lines on a map. We are talking about people who probably see it as tribe and family first and then country. That is what Daesh is trying to capitalise on when they talk about a caliphate. They are not trying to recognise the borders of Syria or Iraq. They are talking about extending this throughout the Middle East. There has been an eradication of levels of authority and administration, and a power void has been established which has enabled interlopers such as IS, or Daesh, to gain traction.
One thing that that seems obvious to both the member for Berowra and me is that this will not resolve itself through a military solution. There must be a negotiated outcome and probably a political outcome. That is something we never thought about 12 months or so ago. These are things that we must apply ourselves to. If we do not, young people over there will have no future other than to become assets for someone who sees their lives as expendable. We need to accept our responsibilities not simply because of our involvement in the Middle East going back to 2003 but because we as a nation know that this particular conflict has implications for all of us around the globe. This conflict will not go away unless we can help accommodate that.
I would like to reflect briefly on the highly valued work of the various agencies of the United Nations such as UNICEF and Save the Children and the many people that we met over there. Many Australians were there working with these agencies in sometimes very squalid conditions. They were doing it because they believe in a future for these people.
The figures that the member for Berowra and I have used for this report are authoritative figures provided by various agencies. As I said, we visited many of the UN-run refugee camps and the camps run by the Turkish government. While we were in Lebanon we also went past some of the informal camps there. The more developed camps are tent cities with power and sewerage. But let me tell you what we found in the informal camps. If members go to the report, they will find a photograph there. These camps were basically bits of plastic strung together—no latrines, no toilets, no power and no water. They were just sheets of plastic drawn across a tree or across a few boxes and people were living there. As I said, you could not possibly come away from this field visit unaffected.
I commend Sophie Dunston, the secretary of the committee, for her efforts. It was a pleasure to travel with her. It was also a pleasure to travel with the father of the House, the member for Berowra. He is a man of compassion who is certainly committed to seeing a brighter outcome for the people of the Middle East.
by leave—I move:
That Ms Bird be discharged from the Standing Committee on Education and Employment and that, in her place, Mr O'Connor be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I rise to update the House on the government's policy priorities in regard to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Water reform in our nation has progressed over many years. I speak on this matter today as one of the many members from both sides of the House who have been given the responsibility of managing this nationally important issue. I acknowledge the work done by former Prime Minister John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull as the minister for water and their courage to continue on the path of bold reforms in the water sector building on the COAG reforms of the mid-1990s and the National Water Initiative and the Living Murray program of the early 2000s.
In a continent such as ours, with such variable climatic conditions, managing water resources sensibly, equitably and sustainably is the most important aspect of the Commonwealth's role in leading the nation's water reform agenda. The making of the Basin Plan in 2012 by the then minister for water Tony Burke, with bipartisan support from the coalition, represented the culmination of 20 years of substantial water reform. Under Prime Minister Abbott each state has now signed up to the intergovernmental agreement for implementing water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin, a historic achievement that all members of this parliament and state parliaments can be equally proud of. This plan is the epitome of bipartisanship and recognition of the dire situation highlighted by the millennium drought. It shows what can be achieved through federal and state collaboration, negotiation and cooperation.
I have only been in this portfolio a short time but I immediately commenced travelling throughout the regions of the Murray-Darling Basin listening to and observing the concerns of all sectors of the community. I have travelled the length of the Murray River. I have visited parts of the Goulburn and Murrumbidgee rivers. I have travelled to the Menindee Lakes to see the dire situation with their water shortage, with water now only remaining in Copi Hollow. I look forward to continuing my travels down the Darling River with the members for Parkes and Maranoa after Easter. No matter where I go, it is clear to me that there are two key issues facing communities in the basin. The first is the policy fatigue that has set in after more than 20 years of water reform. The second is the sense of urgency for certainty regarding the implementation of the Basin Plan.
The communities of the Murray-Darling Basin understand the need for the reforms that have gone ahead, but they, rightly, want assurances that the implementation of these water reforms will achieve a win-win-win that delivers good outcomes for the environment, for the farmers and irrigators and for the communities and businesses in the plan. I want to make it abundantly clear that the coalition government is committed to delivering the Basin Plan in full, on time. The coalition is completing the water reforms that we started. It is what we pledged and it is what we are delivering. However, we recognise the concerns and challenges that the plans create for some communities, and we must and we will find a way to deliver the best possible outcome for basin communities and the environment. It is our responsibility to ensure the long-term environmental and business sustainability for our communities to prosper. The coalition is cognisant of the need for certainty for all businesses, to enable them to invest in the future of their community and industry. This is true from the north of the basin to the south, as it is from the east of the basin to the west.
We are listening to the environmentalists, to the townspeople, to the farmers, to the irrigators, to the businesses, to the tourism operators, to industry and to fishermen alike. Every person and every group in the basin matters and they must all be considered. This is why we are aiming to implement the Basin Plan to achieve a win-win-win outcome and provide a level of certainty that has been missing. That is why we are now moving to legislate the 1,500-gigalitre cap on water buybacks in the basin, to place a ceiling on the amount of water recovery that can be achieved through water purchase, in line with the coalition's Water Recovery Strategy released in June 2014. To date, 1,162 gigalitres have been recovered through water purchase, 607 gigalitres recovered through investment in infrastructure programs and a further 182 gigalitres through other state recovery actions. That is 1,951 gigalitres, 70 per cent of the water recovery required under the plan. There is still more to be done, but it needs to be done with the least detrimental impact on all sectors of the community. For the remaining water recovery efforts, we have prioritised the remainder of the Basin Plan funding for investment in infrastructure, particularly through more efficient on- and off-farm irrigation systems and environmental works and measures to achieve the outcomes of the Basin Plan to the full extent.
People often talk about the Snowy Hydro scheme as the biggest infrastructure project that rural Australia has ever seen. While the project is an impressive hydrological engineering feat, let me tell you that the $820 million that government spent over 25 years pales in comparison to the $13 billion that will be spent implementing the Basin Plan reforms. From now to 30 June 2019, the Australian government will spend $2 million per day investing in infrastructure right across the basin, investing in the future of sustainable farming and irrigated agriculture and investing in our environmental sustainability as well as community sustainability, all with a level of certainty. That is $2 million per day invested in regional communities. We will do this working in partnership with our state counterparts, who are key and critical to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin reforms.
Throughout my travel with local members, I have seen the positives of this investment by the Commonwealth government. With Sharman Stone, the member for Murray, I visited the dairy farm of Nick and Nicole Ryan, who have upgraded their farm with laser levelling and automated pressure pipe-and-riser irrigation technology. Irrigating paddocks through automation reduces watering time, delivers water to the soil more efficiently and effectively, reducing the volume of water required to maintain healthy pastures and reducing salinity impacts. These infrastructure works increase farm productivity and reduce the labour demands of farming, all while delivering water savings for our environment.
I also visited Deniliquin with Sussan Ley, the member for Farrer, where I saw infrastructure investment in new remote-controlled regulators and metering and met with the Wragge family, a father-and-son rice-growing team. Again, they are benefiting from the on-farm laser levelling, which is reducing the amount of water needed but also increasing crop yield. Innovation is the Australian way, and this rice farmer is looking for further means to increase his yield per hectare. He is doing it by putting freshwater eels into the flooded paddocks, which is achieving a dual benefit of eel production from market and improving the environmental footprint, through bug control, as the eels feed on the insects, reducing pesticides and input costs.
I encountered similar stories of efficiency and effectiveness in the electorate of Tony Pasin, the member for Barker, visiting grape and citrus growers who are achieving similar feats of increased efficiency and productivity. While in Renmark, I also visited the Chowilla regulator, which is an impressive example of the type of work being done to achieve better environmental outcomes through effective control and delivery of water and, just like irrigators, achieve a more efficient use of water. This project is part of the $1 billion for the Living Murray works for environmental icon sites in the Murray. The regulator will allow for regular inundation of up to 50 per cent of the 17,750 hectares of wetlands. I also saw the fish ladders and gates in action, which now span the entire length of the Murray River, restricting the passage of non-native carp, which destroy our river system, whilst providing safe passage for our native species—an engineering feat in itself. Similarly, I saw the works at Koondrook-Perricoota Forest on the New South Wales side of the Murray, which covers 32,000 hectares of flood plain and is home to significant bird, fish and native flora populations, including iconic river red gum and black box colonies. Over $100 million invested through the Living Murray Initiative is finally delivering water to the wetland. I have seen the success of this recent environmental watering, with the trees, scrub and wildlife responding slowly but positively.
Andrew Broad, the member for Mallee, and Michael McCormack, the member for Riverina, despite the distances between their electorates, have good examples of the positives from government investment in off-farm delivery infrastructure.
In the Sunraysia, Lower Murray Water are converting their channel system to pipe, which reduces water losses during delivery and improves water quality to the farmers, through the $103 million in federal government investment. In the Murrumbidgee I saw the innovation and drive from the Coleambally Irrigation deliver world's best-practice farming techniques and water management. They also highlighted increased investment in the region due to more efficient water delivery and certainty of access through these irrigation networks.
In a sign of confidence in the future of irrigated agriculture, six local cotton farmers have banded together, investing $24 million to build a cotton gin. I was so impressed by the enthusiasm in this small but very dynamic community. I met with Leeton mayor Paul Maytom, who was upbeat about the investment that the reforms were delivering to his community. However, when meeting with him and local businesses such as JBS meats, SunRice and Walnuts Australia, they highlighted the need for certainty from government—the need for the 1,500-gigalitre cap to be legislated.
At the end of the day, all of the above projects are investments in agriculture that are delivering improvements for our farmers and water for the environment. We recognise the challenges for all groups, from townspeople to farmers, irrigators, environmentalists, business and tourism operators, industry and fishermen alike—indeed, everyone. That is why we are determined to deliver a triple-bottom-line outcome. The basin as a whole depends on it. As I have said, delivering the plan is not without its challenges or issues that we must address. We will work with the states to finesse and deliver a plan that meets this aim, and we will make sure that it is effective.
From my visits to the basin I can see and understand the emotions, but I can only address the facts—and I will address the facts. I have heard clearly the concerns surrounding the constraints management strategy and the delivery of environmental water. I thank those groups on the Edward and Murrumbidgee rivers that showed me around their farms and highlighted the issues in some of the modelling and what the model means for those on the ground. It is clear this is an area that the states need to examine more thoroughly as a part of the development of the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism. I have listened to the calls for improved transparency and greater community engagement. I have directed the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the Department of the Environment and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to address this with a level of urgency.
There will be challenging times as we again go through dry periods, as we did with the millennium drought—as much as we will go through challenging times during excessive wet periods, as we did in 2010, 2011 and 2012. As Dorothea Mackellar wrote in those immortal words of the poem My Country, on the deck of the Torryburn house, near Gresford in my electorate of Paterson, this is:
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
We—and I mean all of us—need to take people on the journey with us. We need to provide greater certainty so that communities can understand where the journey in these reforms will take them from now to 2019 and beyond. We need to work together in a bipartisan way to provide a level of certainty to address the challenges together with our basin communities, not against them. Communities have a need and a right to know what the plan will deliver and what their future holds. We need to build a strong future in the Murray-Darling Basin, and that is why the next step is to legislate the 1,500-gigalitre cap. It is so important as a means of providing confidence and certainty to the basin community as a whole. They deserve nothing less.
I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment for the opportunity to speak and acknowledge the bipartisanship that lies very much of the heart of the Basin Plan. I congratulate him on his appointment to this portfolio. Both of us, representing our respective parties, bear a great deal of responsibility to continue the implementation of a plan that was very much one of the highlights of the last parliament. I also acknowledge and thank him for the work that his office continues to do in keeping us in touch with the work of the government in that implementation. As the parliamentary secretary has acknowledged, continuing that bipartisanship is absolutely essential to achieving the objectives that people worked so hard to put into the plan in the last term of parliament.
As many of us in this place know—as many who have come in to participate in this part of the debate know—the question of allocation around the river Murray, the sharing and the regulation of waters in the Murray, is a dispute that goes back to way before Federation. This is something I am deeply aware of. My family were fruit growers, and my great-great-grandfather represented South Australia at the conference that achieved the 1915 River Murray agreement, which, for the first time, dealt with some questions of regulation and sharing of water. This was important not only for South Australia but also for New South Wales and Victoria in terms of the waters upstream and downstream from Albury. It started the locking of the river that allowed, in times of drought, for waters to stay in the system and to continue to sustain production in so many of the communities in the basin. All of us understand just how important these issues have been for, really, many decades in restoring our rivers to health or sustaining the health of our rivers, supporting strong regional communities right up and down the basin, and ensuring sustainable food production.
I acknowledge the work on the reform process that was started in the mid-1990s but particularly during the Howard government, including with Minister Turnbull, and carried through our period of government. In particular, Minister Burke, the member for Watson, had the very difficult task at times to bring this together into an intergovernmental agreement and to deal with the very serious concerns of different members of the community—basin communities, most obviously, but also communities in my own state of South Australia, including Adelaide, which probably is the most affected of all of the large metropolitan communities in Australia. The plan and the agreement, as is the nature of these things, did not satisfy everyone entirely.
There are concerns from all perspectives in this debate about the contents of this agreement, but that demonstrates it is an agreement—if we all work hard enough—that can be sustained for the long-term. As the parliamentary secretary has said, the Basin Plan will set basin-wide sustainable diversion limits and return 2,750 gigalitres to the environment. Basin states are required to prepare water-resource plans that will give effect to the SDLs from July 2019. Under the SDL adjustment mechanism up to 650 gigalitres can be provided through supply measures, projects that deliver environmental outcomes with less water. Proposals for these supply measures are, as I understand it, in varying states of preparation and assessment still. There is a bipartisan commitment to bridge the gap between what these supply measures can provide and the 2,750 gigalitres to be returned to the environment.
As members know, on top of that 2,750-gigalitre target, an additional 450 gigalitres will be returned to the environment. Funding was provided through legislation, in 2013, for the additional 450 gigalitres, which must be obtained through projects that ensure no social or economic downsides for communities, such as on-farm irrigation projects. There is $1.78 billion in the Water for the Environment Special Account, including $200 million for the removal of constraints identified in the constraints management strategy.
To date, 1,951 gigalitres has been recovered for the environment through a mix, as the parliamentary secretary identified in detail, of water purchase, infrastructure, investment and other basin state recovery actions. This is water that can be used at appropriate times and where it is needed to improve flow and help restore health throughout the system. Already, we have seen successful water releases overseen by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, CEWH—or 'chew', as he is affectionately known—and the state and regional water management agencies.
Importantly, there has been significant Commonwealth investment in ensuring that farms remain productive as the plan is delivered. As stated by the parliamentary secretary, $2 million a day is being and will continue to be spent on efficiency and infrastructure measures out to 2019. This is not only a significant amount of taxpayers' money but also it is a significant commitment to the Basin Plan itself—to the health of our rivers, to the ecosystems and to the regional communities that they support.
The basin supports agriculture, as everyone knows, on a grand scale—around 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural production. According to ABS figures, in 2012-13 the basin accounted for over 50 per cent of Australia's irrigated produce, including almost 100 per cent of Australia's rice, 96 per cent of Australia's cotton, 75 per cent of Australia's grapes, 59 per cent of Australia's hay, 54 per cent of Australia's fruit, 52 per cent of Australia's production from sheep and livestock and 45 per cent of Australia's dairy. They are extraordinary statistics.
Around two million people live and work in the basin, in communities ranging from fewer than 1,000 people to large urban centres, like Wagga Wagga, with over 45,000 people. A further 1.2 million people depend on the waters of the basin to survive. All of this agricultural production and the two million people living in the basin rely on a healthy, functioning river system.
There are also the environmental needs of the river. Within the basin there are approximately 30,000 wetlands, over 60 species of fish, 124 families of macroinvertebrates, 98 species of waterbirds, four threatened water-dependent ecological communities and hundreds of plant species supported by key floodplains. The health of the river, the channels themselves and the flora and fauna they support, is not only vital in its own right but also vital for the economic and social wellbeing of basin communities. As a South Australian, I know the health of the basin—and particularly the Murray—is epitomised by the health of the Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth as well.
Related to environmental needs and flows, the Aboriginal nations and communities in the basin want and should have access to the flows they need to ensure the continuation of their culture and their social and economic wellbeing. Aboriginal people feel a deep connection to their land and the waters that flow through and across them. This needs to be recognised and provided for, not as an exercise in imperial patronage but by ensuring Aboriginal people are empowered through water rights. When environmental water is released into the rivers and wetlands, Aboriginal expertise should also be called upon.
The deep knowledge of Aboriginal people of the river systems means that they have important, if not vital, advice to give our water managers that, if heeded, can add great value to their work. Groups such as the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations and the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations have a lot to offer us if we listen. Engagement with Aboriginal people in the basin cannot be done as a simple tick-the-box exercise. Proper, ongoing engagement will benefit all of us.
I recognise, at the core of the parliamentary secretary's ministerial statement today, that the government wishes to provide certainty to basin communities by placing a cap of 1,500 gigalitres on water purchases. As with the Basin Plan itself and many aspects of it, there are different points of view on the issue of water purchase versus infrastructure measures as the best means of achieving the agreed outcomes of the Basin Plan. I have spoken with a number of different stakeholders about this particular issue, including the National Farmers' Federation, the National Irrigators Council, the Australian Conservation Foundation and many others. I very much appreciate the time taken by those groups—most recently the NIC and the NFF, whom I met with over the last couple of weeks—to give me the benefit of their views about this issue, in particular, and implementation of the plan, in general. I also acknowledge the work that the parliamentary secretary and his office has done to try to continue the bipartisan basis on which this parliament has dealt with this plan over the past few years.
For the opposition there are two key imperatives around the success of the Basin Plan, beyond the engagement I have talked about with stakeholders, such as the NIC, NFF, ACF and others. Those imperatives are: firstly, to achieve, as far as possible, bipartisanship within this parliament, and I acknowledge that is a discussion we are in the process of having; and secondly, that there is the support of those basin states. That is the unknown position, from our perspective.
We understand there are some views that the South Australian government has already expressed about this cap. We will continue to talk with them, and I am sure the parliamentary secretary will as well. For understandable reasons, the Victorian and Queensland governments are fairly new to the job and I am not aware that they have expressed a developed position about this. But, obviously, the opposition—and I am sure, the government—would be very keen to know the views of those new governments and, for very obvious reasons—being 48 hours out from a New South Wales election—I think the New South Wales government has been distracted by other matters.
I do encourage—not that I probably need to—the government to continue to talk with those basin states, because the opposition will certainly be very keen to understand the views of those four states before we reach a view about the wisdom or otherwise of imposing a legislated cap on water buybacks to the tune of 1,500 gigalitres.
We do look forward to further reports from the parliamentary secretary about the implementation of this plan, and we do undertake to continue to work constructively with the government on that very important work.
I rise today to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014.
Access to good health and to good health care is a sign of a great community and a great health service. Australia has a proud record of quality health care, with our universal access to primary health and a balance between public and private provision. But from time to time things do go wrong, and having a robust and effective complaints system is an important feature of society. Consumer protections are an important element of any system; this bill transfers the functions of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and is therefore worth careful consideration.
Labor wants a strong health system, unlike what we see currently from the government. It seems not to have a clear health policy. As this bill makes changes to the existing system without careful considerations of the implications and the practical outcomes, this reflects many of the things that we have seen from this government in 18 months in the health space. Of course, we have had changes to the GP tax—too many to count—and still it seems unresolved. We had a $7 GP tax, a $20 proposal, a $5 proposal and now—it seems by stealth—an $8 increase to patients at the GP. We have had PBS price hikes planned but still not delivered. We have Medicare Locals still unsure of the future arrangements—those things are still unresolved. And we have hundreds of healthcare groups' community health programs not knowing if they will exist after June.
These programs were particularly targeted to areas in our community with high risks of diabetes and heart disease. It was preventative health funding, and part of the budget cuts from this government—which seems to have not as yet come to grips with the notion that prevention is cheaper than cure. In Wyndham, we have the Healthy Together Wyndham program. This program in Wyndham has reached over 54,000 people—that is 28 per cent of our population that has had a positive relationship or interaction with that Healthy Together program. It is still in doubt beyond June this year, having been topped up for the last 12 months by the state government.
It is in that space that we are looking at this further bill today. We have had short-term extensions to things like the specialised training program, a program designed to train more specialists—particularly in rural areas. So, we find ourselves in this health space, with uncertainty in the community about how we are going to go forward. Again, we have a bill in front of us where it appears that the implications of the bill have not been thought through thoroughly.
This government has also approved the two biggest increases to private health insurance premiums in a decade—three times the rate of inflation and bigger than any ever announced by the previous Labor government. A moment's thought would give pause about an unseemly price hike in the current chaos that is being overseen by this government. It leaves us thinking that the Abbott government has no deep commitment to health and no clear direction set in the health space.
The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman exists currently to protect the interests of Australian private health insurance consumers—that is, patients in the context of health. It plays a vital role, it is in demand and it is very effective. It assists in settling disputes, it identifies underlying repeat problems across companies and it has a monitoring role. It provides data for problem-solving. That data should be used to assist in the design of preventative actions. As William Edwards Deming said, 'In God we trust, all others bring data.' But in this instance, this piece of legislation could prove to minimise the government's access to useful data in plans for future health provision.
In a lean operation, the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman provides advice to industry and government about issues, about the sector's performance and about common complaints. It is delivering in a growing complaints regime. It produces the annual State of the health funds report, and has done so for more than 10 years, comparing the performance of health funds. It has overseen an increase in complaints but also an increase in traffic to the website, where patients—customers and consumers—can look at the comparative performance of those health funds. And it has seen increased customer satisfaction. It is, therefore a good-quality service. One wonders why this government would see fit to move the provision from the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to the Commonwealth Ombudsman at this time.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman also oversees an effective operation, but will it be well supported to take on this extra task? None of this is clear in this piece of legislation. Will the specialised staff be lost? Will the corporate knowledge be lost? Will the parameters of the work be maintained? Will the service levels go down?
Specialised staff and corporate knowledge are vital in ongoing decision making in the health sector.
This is in contrast to Labor's attitude towards health care. We are on the record as supporting private health insurance in this country. Despite the scare campaign by the current government whilst in opposition, the membership of private health insurance continues to grow, which means for the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman the workload continues to grow. This bill would see that workload shifted across to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
We all know that the Commonwealth Ombudsman already has a huge workload in defence, immigration, law enforcement, the postal industry, overseas students and potentially other areas. It begs the question: what is the government's motivation for this change? Is it cost cutting? Yet the legislation indicates it is cost neutral.
On this side of the House, we demonstrated in government how to balance business imperatives with consumer protection. We protected consumers from rising costs, and the private health industry provision grew. We are left to wonder: is it to avoid scrutiny? Is this government avoiding the data that would assist in making decisions regarding provision into the future?
This bill demonstrates clearly that this government and this health minister have very different priorities to the previous government. They are not, it seems, interested in an effective, efficient and informed health sector. This is clearly evident from the Medicare Local shambles where there is still no certainty and could be seen through the lens of another attack on collecting data to make informed, strategic decisions about the health sector.
Labor has a proud record on health. We want private health insurance members to have access to quality information and the best resources so they can find the best provider at the best price. We want access to the best health system in the world. We want a healthy, productive community: investment in preventative health and keeping people out of expensive hospital beds. This piece of legislation appears to put at risk some of the data, information, monitoring and intervention that makes all that possible.
This government, it appears, does not value health provision. It talks about competition but fails to back this up with actions. It has a scattergun approach to health policy. There is a lack of consultation with the sector and consumers. There is a lack of clear vision. Minister Ley has been sent in to clean up the mess that she inherited from Minister Dutton when he was in the role. My fear is that this is just another example of poorly-thought-out policy.
For the people in my electorate, where 62 per cent have private health insurance, this is a critical piece of legislation. It may in fact change the provision currently where consumers can be quite confident in that they can make a complaint to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman and have it seen to seriously. They can currently go to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman with confidence that they are dealing with a system that knows the sector well and has expertise in the sector, and they can talk to specialist staff who understand their concerns and the way the system works. I am reluctant to say that I can support this piece of legislation, given that it changes the shape of the current system.
The substantive elements of this bill merge the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman and the Commonwealth Ombudsman, but we are left wondering if there will be the capacity for the Ombudsman to fulfil this important role. We are concerned that the current provision of allowing someone with a complaint to request additional time to report to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman is not part of the changes proposed by the government.
There is also currently provision for the minister to intervene where the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman decides not to investigate a complaint, and this is omitted in the current bill. The provision for the minister to request the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to undertake investigations is also omitted in this bill. Like my colleagues, while not opposing the bill outright, I want to flag the opposition's concerns about these omissions—and I do that on behalf of the 62 per cent of the people in Lalor who have private health insurance and need assurance that their complaints and consumer rights will be protected in this system.
I find myself once again speaking in this chamber on health, because I am concerned about this government's lack of direction in the health portfolio. We are still in a space where we are unsure about the provision of bulk-billing into the future. For the people of my electorate of Lalor, where 92 per cent have access to bulk-billing GP services, this is a concern. In my electorate, health funding for hospitals was cut in last year's budget. In another example, the McAuley centre has 12 months continual funding that will finish in June, and Medicare Locals are still unsure about the future. We have general practitioners in the electorate who tell me that they found the Medicare Local absolutely essential and absolutely informative around the data and the needs of the community they serve, and that they had been working collaboratively across the electorate on preventative health measures and being innovative about how health provision would be conducted across the electorate.
I call on this government to start thinking clearly about healthcare provision and to put preventative health measures at the front of their thinking in this area. I ask them to honour bulk-billing into the future and to desist from trying to dismantle our universality of health care. I ask them to fund the hospitals and to commit to ensuring that our public hospitals have the funds that they need. I ask them to fund preventative health measures. I ask them to give consideration to all of these things so that we can work in the health sector with the data that we need to ensure that we get provision right into the future; so that we can keep people out of expensive hospital beds; and so that we can work with our general practitioners and with the experts in the health sector to ensure that health provision in my electorate and across the country is the best it can be, as it has been in the past.
It is with great pleasure that I speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014, because private health insurance is a matter of deep concern to the nation at large and to the, roughly, over 50 per cent of residents of my electorate who hold a private health insurance policy. That is slightly below the national average but important nonetheless.
The bill is about the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman and the oversight role that the ombudsman's office plays in the private health insurance industry. The PHI Ombudsman has an important role in protecting the interests of people covered by private health insurance. Unlike the current government, which has presided over record levels of private health insurance premium increases, the ombudsman has its eye on the industry. The government clearly does not. The PHIO also manages the very important consumer information website and deals with a prodigious amount of work.
I just ask you to consider this: there are 12 staff currently working in the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman's office. In 2013-14, in that year alone, they dealt with nearly 3½ thousand complaints. You can do the maths yourself; when you do, you will work out that this is a busy office dealing in a very professional way with the complaints and concerns of the more than half of my constituents who have private health insurance and those throughout the population at large. They have not been sitting around doing nothing. They have been very, very busy.
Against that backdrop, you can understand some concerns that we might have in the context of a government which is hell-bent on withdrawing resources from the public sector. This bill has savings attached to it, albeit modest savings; but we are concerned that, without sufficient resources, the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman and the staff who work in the wider ombudsman's office will not have the resources available to them to do their job.
Contrast that with what we did when we were in office. We put in place over $1.4 million to increase the resources available to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman and to enable them to do their job. We have, through this bill and other budget measures, attempts by the government to withdraw resources from the PHI Ombudsman's office.
When you look at the amount of complaints, I ask you to consider this: there is a stubborn correlation between the volume of complaints that the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman receives and the level of increase in private health insurance premiums. We can predict a very steady increase in premiums under this government. I would like to say that the last two health ministers have got the record for overseeing the highest levels of private health insurance premium increases, but, of course, as the member for Ballarat said in her contribution to this debate, that medal belongs to the Prime Minister, because when he was the minister for private health insurance and the minister for health, we saw record premium increases of in excess of seven per cent.
So I would make this point: we are seeing a steady trajectory of increases in private health insurance premiums, we are seeing a government which wants to rip money out of the oversight body and we are seeing customers increasingly wanting to get information and to make complaints where they see that the industry has not done the right thing. Our concern, and it goes to the heart of our concern about this bill, is that the body charged with oversight will not have the resources available to it to meet customer demand. That is a reservation, and that is a concern that Labor members of parliament who have spoken on this bill have expressed.
I want to add a voice for people in regional Australia—and I will have some comments about the coverage of private health insurance in regional Australia in a moment. I know that the member for Wakefield is equally concerned about this, and I see him in the chamber here today. People in regional Australia need access to a complaint service, and they want to be assured that these changes are not going to adversely impact their ability to get both information and access to a complaint service in relation to private health insurance.
The government seeks to transfer the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman functions to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Like the staff of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, the staff of the Commonwealth Ombudsman are very busy indeed. If you have a look at the oversight role that they already have, it goes to the Defence Force, immigration, law enforcement, taxation, the postal industry, ACT and overseas students.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
They are about to get functions, as the member for Lalor reminds me, in relation to data retention. This is a very busy office. We are expecting, in less than a month and a half, another shock budget with further cuts to services. We have real questions about the capacity of the Ombudsman, already struggling under a high workload, diminished resources and the impact of an efficiency dividend and other cuts, to deal with this new and increased workload.
I do admit some of the functions are not going to be transferred. This is one of these 'falling between chairs' issues. The PHI Ombudsman may currently permit additional time to respond to the subject of a complaint. That is not going to be a feature of the new system. The minister himself or herself will no longer be able to intervene, should the ombudsman refuse to investigate a matter. We think that this is an important safeguard—the capacity of the minister to direct the ombudsman to proceed with an investigation. Similarly, the minister will no longer be able to request that the ombudsman investigate a matter.
Compulsory mediation will be abolished in the new system, and we think that is a backward step. In all disputes and in all forums that deal with litigation, it is now the norm that a compulsory mediation step occur ahead of a more litigious approach.
There are going to be some changes to the penalties, and the ombudsman will no longer require permission from a complainant to investigate their dealings on the subject matter of the complaint. I do not want to accent that last matter, but it is not purely a matter of picking up all of the functions and transferring them to the general Ombudsman.
I have expressed these concerns. In the time remaining, I would like to make a few observations about the private health insurance industry and particularly the reach of the industry into regional Australia. Private health insurance has a long history in Australia, reaching back to the friendly societies and the lodges that predated universal health cover. But it became clear to those on our side of politics by the mid-1970s that the system was broken. There were significant problems. There was an ineffective structure within the industry itself. It was very fragmented, with lots of very small societies eating up lots of the premium in administration. They were inefficient. In fact, over 17 per cent of Australians living outside the state of Queensland had no cover whatsoever. Many of those who did have cover did not have the right sort of cover.
There was this inequity within the system—the fact that, as Gough Whitlam famously remarked, the taxpayer provided him more money to subsidise his private health insurance cover than it did the person who drove him to and from his office in Parliament House. He thought that was wrong and quite rightly put in place the Medibank system with a private health insurance arm sitting alongside it. Of course, when the coalition vowed to destroy Medibank—and they did, after five goes at it—it fell to the Hawke government to reinstate universal health cover through the Medicare system. Medicare remains the cornerstone of universal health coverage in Australia. It is very strongly our view that the role of private health insurance is to complement Medicare, not to replace it.
We reject the proposition that those advising the government put in the Commission of Audit, that private health insurance should subsume Medicare for all but the very poorest in society. We think that there is something uniquely Australian about having a universal system of healthcare cover. It is not free. If you like, to use the insurance analogy, the premium comes from your pay packet, your pay-as-you-go taxes, through the Medicare levy. The more you earn, the more you pay, and we think that this is a much fairer and much more efficient system. There is a role for private health insurance, but it complements Medicare; it does not replace it.
In the period between 1996 and 2007, the private health insurance industry faced a lot of challenges. There was a significant slide in the number of Australians taking out private health insurance policies. It was the policy of the Howard government at that point in time to take steps to arrest this slide, and significant government intervention—subsidies and assistance—was put in place to support the private health insurance industry. Lifetime Health Cover together with a 30 per cent rebate on premiums were the two principal levers that were put in place to support and subsidise the private health insurance industry. They have remained the cornerstone of government policies since their inception to today.
It is true that we thought it was both a more efficient use of the public purse and a more equitable system if we put in place a means test on the rebates for private health insurance—a policy adopted by Labor, contested by those opposite. It remains to be seen in the budget that they will stand and deliver in a few weeks time whether they will make good on their promise to get rid of the means testing of the private health insurance rebate. We will see what happens on the front.
But Labor in government also took the view, in an attempt to put downward pressure on the increasing premiums—that we would only index that rebate to CPI increases and not the actual increases in private health insurance. There were two good reasons for that. The first was to ensure that the taxpayer was not effectively providing a blank cheque by a one-third subsidy for the increases in premiums. We think that had the effect of putting downward pressure on premium increases. It was also a means of ensuring that the exponential growth in the cost of the PHI rebate was not subsuming the healthcare budget. We supported those provisions in government. We continue to support them today. It remains to be seen whether those on the other side, when they introduce their budget in a few weeks time, will seek to review those measures.
I want to say a few things about private health insurance in regional Australia. The coverage of private health insurance in regional Australia, compared to metropolitan Australia, is very, very low. This is a factor of low incomes—the low socioeconomic status of people in regional Australia compared to those in the cities—and the lack of services available to people living in regional Australia. There is a challenge for both the government and the private health insurance sector to ensure we redress this. If we are going to close the gap in access to services between those living in the bush and regional Australia and those living in metropolitan Australia, this must be dealt with.
With those comments in mind, we have serious reservations about the bill but we welcome the opportunity to debate it in the House today.
I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014. This bill transfers the function of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Commonwealth Ombudsman will automatically hold the position of Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, with the office also being transferred as a 'path to smaller government' commitment. The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman will be transferred, as I have said. With this transfer, some of the powers will be changed or removed. To be honest, I do have some concerns. This government's record when it comes to accountability and transparency is very, very poor. At present, the subject of a complaint may request additional time to report to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman. This ability will not be transferred—basically because it is not consistent with the role of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The minister will no longer be able to intervene if the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman decides not to investigate a complaint. Once again, that has been omitted. The provision for the minister to request the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to undertake an investigation is also omitted. These are all things that we on this side of the House are quite concerned about. Unfortunately, as I have already mentioned, this government has a very poor record when it comes to health and a very poor record when it comes to openness, transparency and accountability.
Second to the government's assault on Medicare and decision to increase the price of pharmaceuticals, the next biggest complaint that I receive in my office is in relation to private health insurance—be it gap payments or a complaint relating to a particular private insurance provider. I see this as a diminution of what is currently available. It shows that the government really does not care about accountability. The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman exists to protect the interests of private health insurance consumers. It is about offering protection to Australians. It assists health fund members to resolve disputes—and, as I said, quite a number of disputes occur. It identifies underlying problems in the practice of private health funds. It provides advice to the government about issues affecting Australian consumers in relation to private health insurance. It provides advice and recommendations to the government and industry. This will all be a lot more difficult under the changes.
One thing members on this side of the House and the Australian people know is that you cannot trust the Abbott government when it comes to health. It is not only the opposition that knows this; it is the Australian people. I put on record that my office is constantly contacted by constituents complaining about the Abbott government's approach to health—be it private health insurance or Medicare. Before the last election the Abbott government said that there would be no cuts to health. Basically, this is a cost saving measure; it is all about saving money. Since the election the government has waged war on Australians and on our health system with one cut after another.
I will give the House a flavour of some of the cuts. More than $57 billion has been cut from Australia's public hospitals. There has been a cut of $197 million from flexible funds. This includes the Chronic Disease Prevention and Service Improvement Fund; the Communicable Diseases Prevention and Service Improvement Grants Fund; the Substance Misuse Prevention and Service Improvement Grants Fund; the Substance Misuse Service Delivery Grants Fund; the Health Social Surveys Fund; the Single Point of Contact for Health Information, Advice and Counselling Fund; the Practice Incentives for General Practices Fund and the Rural Health Outreach Fund. On rural health, as the shadow minister mentioned, very few people in rural and regional areas have private health insurance. It also includes the Health System Capacity Development Fund, the Health Surveillance Fund and the Health Protection Fund. These are all part of the $197 million in cuts to flexible funding. They have also cut $368 million from preventative health programs, which the states rely on to tackle obesity, smoking and alcohol abuse. Why isn't Mike Baird calling out for these funds to the reintroduced in New South Wales?
They have cut $264 million from priority health initiatives. That includes cuts to hospitals, to the Westmead Millennium Institute for Medical Research, to hospitals in Sydney and to Queensland cancer packages—and the list goes on and on. They have cut $50 million from the stroke package and $5.1 million from cancer care coordination, and of course we have had the increase in prices to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Unfortunately, the minister has not been prepared to stand up when it comes to the increase in private health insurance that took place. There has been a record increase to private health insurance premiums. The last increase was the second highest in private health insurance premiums in a decade. The 6.18 per cent rise approved by the new health minister, Minister Ley, is almost three times the inflation rate and will add about $200 to the cost of annual premiums for families' hospital cover and over $250 for those not eligible for the tax rebate—hardly a government committed to seeing private health insurance grow in Australia, hardly a government that is committed to making sure that private health insurance remains affordable and hardly a government that has the interests of Australians at heart.
Last year, the decision by the Abbott government was the highest increase to private health insurance, and that was a 6.2 per cent increase to private health insurance premiums. So on the one hand, we have a government that is moving away from the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, where people can lodge a complaint—and quite often those complaints relate to price or increased insurance premiums—and, on the other hand, we have a government that is flagging through massive increases to private health insurance without blinking an eye. It may surprise you to learn that since the Abbott government came to power, it has exceeded any of the six annual increases approved under Labor when we were in government. That is very disturbing and does not show a commitment to making health care in Australia affordable.
Labor put in place a $1.4 million increase to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman's capacity. We recognised that it was important that Australians could lodge a complaint and that those complaints would be dealt with. Now that is going to be a lot harder under what this government and this minister are doing to private health insurance in this country.
To be quite honest, the Abbott government is devoid of any health policy other than the destruction of Medicare and the introduction of its GP tax. The health minister confirmed that she was still committed to value signals in the health system—in other words, some sort of a co-payment tax on Australians. To be quite honest, Tony Abbott does not care how healthy Medicare is; he only cares about shoring up his position as Prime Minister and leader of the government. Initially, he announced a $7 GP tax, then a $20 cut, then a $5 GP tax and four years worth of cuts to the Medicare rebate. It is really hard to see how this is any sort of commitment to Medicare.
On at least 53 occasions, the Prime Minister supported the GP tax. He saw it as good and decent policy. He was committed to it on 2 September last year and said, 'It's good policy'; on 9 October, 'It's good policy'; and on 1 October, 'It's right and proper that we have more price signals in our health system.' Do not be under any misconception: Tony Abbott is the greatest threat Medicare has faced in 30 years. To be honest, the people of Australia know that. They value Medicare. The people whom I represent in this parliament, the voters of Shortland, have spoken very clearly about this government's attack on Medicare.
The Shortland electorate has the ninth highest number of pensioners, and they are literally frightened by the assault on Medicare. I have had pensioners come to see me since the increase in the price of pharmaceutical benefits saying that they now ration their medications. Instead of taking one tablet every day, they will take one tablet every second day. This is counterproductive to ensuring the good health of our nation. What it will lead to is a situation where we have poorer health outcomes. This is what the government do not understand. In their ideological hatred of universal health care and their pursuit to undermine Medicare, they have lost sight of the fact that it is not good health policy to go down that track.
I have serious concerns about the legislation we have before us. It is really quite disturbing that we have a Prime Minister that stands up and makes comments about the GP tax, saying that it is fair. Why isn't it fair enough to have a modest co-payment for Medicare? I do not have a problem with a co-payment on Medicare. All I can say is that under this government Medicare is under constant threat and this legislation will reduce the access to complaints that people have in Australia. This government is waging its assault on Medicare, undermining universal health care, and I will conclude by saying: you cannot trust the Abbott government when it comes to health. There is always an ulterior motive for every action it takes in relation to health, and we on this side of the House— (Time expired)
In summing up this Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014, I would like to thank all of the members for their contributions to the debate.
The purpose of the private health insurance amendment bill is twofold. The bill will transfer the functions of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman by amending both the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 and the Ombudsman Act 1976, as of 1 July 2015. The bill will also amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to repeal provisions that were left over from the base premium indexation arrangements. The consolidation of these functions will reduce duplication, improve coordination and increase efficiency in the delivery of the Ombudsman's services to the community. Importantly, there is expected to be no impact upon the services provided to policy holders. The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman will continue to provide education and advice to consumers as well as assist in resolving private health insurance complaints.
I would like to take this opportunity to provide further clarification on some matters raised during debate in this chamber, specifically those raised by the member for Ballarat. The member for Ballarat has raised concerns that the capacity for the subject of a complaint, in most cases an insurer or private hospital, to request additional time to report back to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman about a complaint will not be transferred to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This provision has been removed to ensure consistency with the Ombudsman Act 1976 and to provide efficiencies by streamlining the administrative processes of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. It should be noted that, in doing so, these changes should benefit consumers by potentially providing faster resolutions to complaints, as those organisations that have been complained about will now be required to report within the set time frames, without the ability for delays or extension.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman is an independent statutory office holder and is not subject to direction by anyone on how complaints are to be managed. This is consistent with the approach taken for other industry ombudsmen created under the Ombudsman Act 1976, and ensures that complaints are free from political interference. For this reason, the power enabling me, the Minister for Health, to intervene where the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman decides not to investigate a complaint has not been transferred to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in the interests of maintaining this important independence. Further, I note that this power to intervene has never been used by me or any of my predecessors. Additionally, the provision enabling me to request that the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman undertake an investigation has not been transferred to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for the same reasons of independence. However, it must be made clear that this does not preclude any person, including myself or any parliamentarian, from raising concerns with the Commonwealth Ombudsman for their consideration.
With regard to the questions raised by those opposite about sufficient resourcing after the transfer, I am pleased to inform those opposite that, as part of the transfer of the functions of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, more than 90 per cent of the staff—11 of the 12 current staff—of the office of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman are expected to transfer to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The transfer of existing Private Health Insurance Ombudsman staff to the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman will ensure retention of specialised industry knowledge and provide a continued high level of service to consumers and industry alike. Additionally, the private health insurance complaints levy will continue to be collected to support the investigation of private health insurance complaints by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and I can confirm that the website, privatehealth.gov.au, will also continue to operate exactly as it does now.
Finally, with regard to the concerns raised by the member for Ballarat about the revised penalties for mediation, it is important to note that the current Ombudsman Act does not provide for mediation powers for any of its ombudsmen. However, this bill seeks to retain a mediation power specifically for the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, noting the importance of this function. While the corresponding penalty offence has never been applied, this was viewed as being an important power to retain. In order to better align with the penalty rates contained within the Ombudsman Act, the penalty rate for the failure to participate in mediation has been revised accordingly, but, importantly, it still exists.
The Australian government is unable to support the amendment moved by the opposition; however, I trust that my clarifications today have resolved those questions raised by the member for Ballarat, to which that amendment refers.
This government is, and will remain, committed to the important role that private health insurance plays in Australia's health landscape and is committed to supporting the private health sector into the future. Once again, I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Ballarat has moved an amendment meant that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 amends the Copyright Act 1968 to provide an effective new tool that rights holders use can then use to respond to commercial scale widespread copyright infringement on websites operated outside Australia.
Significance of the creative industries and copyright challenges
Copyright protection provides an essential mechanism for ensuring the viability and success of creative industries by providing an incentive for and a reward to creators. A part of copyright law is to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, creators and owners of copyrighted works and, on the other hand, users and disseminators of copyrighted works. However, this is never simple. Creators themselves have an interest in both protecting their rights as well as access and dissemination of content.
Australia possesses a proud and valuable creative sector. Our creative industries make a significant contribution to our national economy. According to a 2012 report, Australia's creative industries employ 900,000 people and generate economic value of more than $90 billion, including $7 billion in exports.
The internet has created new opportunities for creating, innovating, accessing and distributing intellectual property. The internet has also created major challenges for copyright protection. Material can be accessed, copied and shared with ease. In many instances this is a very good thing and has helped promote education and freedom of speech.
On any view, in net terms the internet has been the most wonderful beneficial invention of infrastructure of mankind. But a collateral effect of technological changes of this kind has been to exacerbate an indifference to the rights of copyright owners among some internet users an expectation amongst some that content should in every respect be free. In many cases, free access to content is lawful and proper, and, as such, is provided for expressly under exceptions to infringement in the Copyright Act.
The challenge though is to strike the right balance. In that regard, it has become apparent that there is a gap in Australia's legislative framework in so far as existing copyright law is not adequate to deter a specific type of infringing activity, which is the facilitation of the online infringement of copyright owners' content, largely of audio-visual material, by online apparatus. Hence parliament recognises that a remedy is required.
There are a number of foreign based online locations that disseminate large amounts of infringing content to Australian internet users. These online locations are currently able to operate without disruption, and profit to a large extent from facilitating the streaming and downloading by end users of infringing copies of audio-visual material. What they do, in unlawfully accessing and then profiting from the intellectual and artistic endeavours of others, is a form of theft.
Rights holders face a number of practical barriers in enforcing their rights against these operators and the most but practical barrier of all, of course, is that the website or the online site that is facilitating this type of infringement, engaging in this form of intellectual property theft is located in a jurisdiction where it is not practical to take legal proceedings. Hence the need to deal with this particular problem. It is a specific problem.
It is very hard to take enforcement action against entities operating outside Australia. In practical terms, it is very difficult. An injunction can only be awarded by a court after lengthy and costly civil proceedings. The widespread scale of infringement means that it is often not viable for rights holders to enforce their rights against individual users.
New injunctions power
This bill will provide a powerful new mechanism to protect the legitimate interests of rights-holders by enabling infringing material to be blocked by a carriage service provider without the need to establish fault on the part of that provider—the carriage service provider being the internet service provider. Specifically, the bill will introduce a new provision that allows rights holders to apply to the Federal Court for an order directing a carriage service provider to disable access to infringing online locations located outside Australia.
This type of provision is working well in other parts of the world such as the United Kingdom, Ireland and Singapore. An injunction is often ordered in those jurisdictions without any opposition from the internet service provider concerned.
Critically, the provisions in this bill have been carefully drafted to ensure that the new injunction power will not affect the legitimate websites and services that legally provide access to copyright material. Importantly, the provision will apply on a no-fault basis against the carriage service provider. This recognises that, while carriage service providers are not necessarily responsible for infringing online locations, they are best placed to prevent Australian internet users from accessing them. The provision does not apply to online locations in Australia, since rights holders can take direct action against those online locations through existing remedies in the Copyright Act.
The bill recognises that there is a need to balance the important goal of protecting our creative industries against other vital public and private interests. The bill, therefore, contains a number of safeguards to ensure that the power is not used to curb those competing interests. First, the power is only as broad as it needs to be to achieve its objectives. The provision will only capture online locations where it can be established that the primary purpose of the location is to infringe or facilitate the infringement of copyright. That is a significant threshold test which will ensure that the provision cannot be used to target online locations that are mainly devoted to a legitimate purpose. As an example of this, let us say that we have a legitimate streaming service located in the United States that is streaming content in respect of which it has all of the copyright authority to stream to customers in the United States. Let us assume that an Australian was to use a VPN, a virtual private network, to create the impression that they were actually located in the United States so that when the American site saw the IP address they would see a US IP address. This Australian could then—and this is widely done—purchase the content in the normal way, with a credit card. The owner of the Australian rights to the content may very well be quite unhappy about that, but they can take a remedy against the American site. This provision does not apply to a site like this. Where someone is using a VPN to access Netflix in the United States to get content in respect of which Netflix does not have an Australian licence, this bill would not deal with that because you could not say that Netflix in the United States has, as its primary purpose, the infringement or facilitation of the infringement of copyright. This is a very important point to make. There are other remedies available to Australian rights holders in respect of those conventional sites—if I can describe them that way.
Second, the court must consider a broad range of factors that reflect competing public and private interests. The court must consider the flagrancy of the infringement. This provision particularly contemplates online locations that deliberately and conspicuously flout copyright laws. The court must also consider whether blocking access to the online location is a proportionate response in the circumstances. For example, the court may consider the percentage of infringing content on the online location compared to the legitimate content or the frequency with which the infringing material is accessed by subscribers in Australia. Another consideration for the court is the overall public interest. The internet has revolutionised our ability to disseminate information and knowledge. The court must weigh the public interest in access to information against the public interest in protecting our creative industries. These competing public interests must themselves be considered in the wider context of the private interest which it is the principal purpose of the bill to protect—that is, the right of content creators to the protection of their intellectual property.
Another important factor is the impact of the application for an injunction on any person affected. That includes, in particular, the carriage service provider, the ISP. The court will need to consider whether there are procedural safeguards to ensure that affected operators of online locations will have an avenue to make their case. The bill requires the copyright owner to notify the carriage service provider and the operator of an application as soon as practical. The operator may then seek to be joined as a party to the proceedings.
Extensive consultation has been conducted on this measure. On 30 July last year the Attorney-General and I jointly released the Online Copyright Infringement discussion paper for public consultation. A number of submissions directly addressed this proposal. As a result of this consultation the measure was modified to give more flexibility to courts in determining whether to order an injunction to capture future infringing technologies and to provide more safeguards for carriage service providers, operators, online locations and internet users.
The new injunction power is one measure that the government is introducing to address online copyright infringement. International experience shows that a range of measures are needed to properly tackle the problem. The new injunction power will complement the industry code that is being developed between the internet service providers and copyright holders. When finalised, the code will create an education notice scheme that will warn alleged infringers and give them information about legitimate alternatives. An injunction provision will be even more effective if users are properly educated and warned about online copyright infringement.
In conclusion, in combating online copyright infringement the most powerful weapon that rights holders have is to provide access to their content in a timely and affordable way. The government accepts that this is an important element in any package of measures to address online copyright infringement. The government also welcomes recent action by rights holders and expects industry to continue to respond to this demand from consumers in the digital market. The bill complements these objectives by ensuring there is fair protection of the rights of content creators while balancing other competing interests in the online environment. This will be achieved by ensuring copyright holders have access to an effective remedy without unduly burdening carriage service providers or unnecessarily regulating the behaviour of consumers. I move that this bill be now read a second time, and I commend it to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I am pleased to be in continuation on this condolence motion for our 22nd Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser. Last night I was going through Malcolm Fraser's greatest achievements and how time has shown that, on those big issues in his life, on the big decisions he made, he was on the right side of history. Something that I think all Australians today can be grateful to Malcolm Fraser for is the way he was able to end the chaos of the years of the Whitlam government. I would just like to quickly reflect—because we often forget—on the disastrous regime that we had here running the country and how important it was, in that 1975 election, that we had someone of Fraser's steadfastness and resolve who was able to go on to get rid of that government.
The Labor government from 1972 to 1975 actually increased government spending by an incredible 40 per cent over three years. Of course, they whacked up taxation by 30 per cent. As it has always proven throughout history, such reckless and wasteful spending, rather than actually creating jobs, destroys them. That is what we saw during the Whitlam regime. We saw a massive rise in unemployment. It actually reached, in that period, its highest since the Great Depression. Inflation at the time got to over 20 per cent, something that is almost unheard of today. Then we had the Labor government currying favour with the Soviets, when they recognised the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. We had the Khemlani affair, when the government was trying to secretly borrow $4 billion, a sum that at the time was one-sixteenth of our GDP. In equivalent terms, it is somewhere approaching $100 billion that they were attempting to borrow from a dodgy Pakistani loan shark. This was the government of the country.
But I think the greatest economic disaster that the country avoided can be shown by the way the Labor government in 1975 attempted to fund their election campaign. When I first read this in history, I thought, 'This simply cannot be true.' But it is. What happened was that the Labor leader at the time sought secret election funding of up to $2 million from the Iraqi Ba'ath Socialist Party. They sent someone who was actually a KGB operative at the time, with the codename of Kirk, to meet Saddam Hussein in Iraq to seek money to fund their election campaign. It is completely unbelievable that this would happen, but this was the government of the time that Malcolm Fraser faced. I want to quote Greg Sheridan about the enormity of the disaster that was facing the Australian public. He said:
… on any measure for an Australian political leader to seek secret electoral funds from one of the most brutal and bloodthirsty tyrannical regimes the 20th century ever saw was a monstrous moral failing.
That is what Malcolm Fraser was facing in 1975. If he had been unsuccessful then, we would have been well on the road not only to Greece or Argentina but to something much, much worse. All Australians have Malcolm Fraser to thank.
The second thing that we should all give enormous credit to Malcolm Fraser for—his decisions proved that he was on the right side of history—is reversing the previous government's shameful recognition of the Soviet annexation of those Baltic states. To think that our previous government would try and curry favour with the Soviets in Russia at the time and sell out the people of the Baltic states—it was an absolute disgrace and a stain on our nation. I have some quotes from Malcolm Fraser at the time. He said, on 30 November 1975:
We will immediately move to assert our commitment to freedom and democracy—our opposition to socialism and communism.
One of our first actions will be withdrawing recognition of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states.
… … …
On December 13th, we will turn on the lights. …
Australia will come out of the darkness of the last three years.
Thankfully that was done. In a later speech that Malcolm Fraser made, when he was celebrating the 60th anniversary of the declaration of independence of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, is a quote that I think we all should live by. It applies every time we go to a citizenship ceremony and new citizens take that oath to become Australians. This is a quote that I will be using in future at those citizenship ceremonies. I would like to put it in the Hansard today. This is Malcolm Fraser, from 15 March 1978:
You have made Australia your new homeland. Australia has offered new hope to many who have fled oppressive authoritarian regimes—new freedom to achieve and create, new opportunity to retain and nourish distinct cultural religious and ethnic traditions.
Your communities have seized this opportunity, and it is to your great credit that you have succeeded in maintaining your identity, preserving your languages and cultures.
Australia is not a country whose culture and traditions are drawn from one source alone. We are a multicultural society and we are all the richer for it.
… … …
I look to you to play a most active role in helping with the Government to improve community services available to migrants in need of assistance and in helping to make our country a great country to live for all Australians.
These are wonderful sentiments from a truly great Prime Minister.
The other thing that we should be very grateful to Malcolm Fraser for was his attitude and acceptance of the Vietnamese refugees who came to the country. Given some of the way that this gets talked about and reported on in the media, Malcolm Fraser has not been given the credit he deserves. I was at a Tet festival a couple of weeks ago, and a senior member of the New South Wales Labor Party claimed that Gough Whitlam was there when the first boats arrived and spoke of the wonderful things the ALP did for the Vietnamese refugees in helping them come to Australia. The fact is that the first boatload of people from Vietnam arrived in April 1976, when the Fraser government was in power. They received a charitable reception from the Fraser government. The Fraser government went on to settle 2,000 people who came here by boat from Vietnam. Over 50,000 people were also resettled from camps in South-East Asia—Vietnamese people who were fleeing the Communist regime of Vietnam. I think that is a very important point to make, because often it is said that the people who left Vietnam were fleeing the war. The Vietnamese people that migrated to Australia had stayed and fought and helped the South Vietnamese. They migrated because they were fleeing the totalitarian jackboot of Communism.
It is also worth mentioning some of the sentiments of the day—which were from the other side of politics—that Malcolm Fraser worked against. There was a bipartisan report by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled Australia and the refugee problem, which was published in 1976. It found that Australia had failed to evacuate from Saigon the Vietnamese who had worked with Australian forces and whose lives were in danger, despite the Air Force having transport capacity available. It stated:
… we are unable to come to any conclusion other than one of deliberate delay in order to minimise the number of refugees.
That was the government before Malcolm Fraser. The opposition leader at that time, Mr Whitlam, when in government was reported in TheWeekend Australian of 26-27 November 1977 as saying:
It's not credible that, two and a half years after the end of the Vietnam war, these people should suddenly be arriving in Australia.
There are some other quotes, but I do not think they are quite suitable for a condolence motion. I suggest that anyone who is interested in this subject should read Clyde Cameron's comments in China, Communism and Coca-Cola to see what was said about the Vietnamese refugees who came to Australia and who have made such a wonderful contribution to our nation. Again, on that issue, Malcolm Fraser was on the right side of history.
The other issue where Malcolm Fraser was truly on the right side of history was when he lifted our ban on exporting uranium back in July 1977. I can remember at school the chants of: 'Export Fraser, not uranium.' Again, history has shown that Malcolm Fraser was right. If we look at the greenhouse gas emissions that have been abated by the nuclear industry around the world, it is the equivalent of 300 years of Australia's total emissions. For anyone who is concerned about the rise of CO2 emissions, the exportation of uranium from Australia and the expansion of the nuclear power industry worldwide has saved the equivalent of 300 years of CO2 emissions from Australia.
Perhaps the previous government could have done more in that area. We have one of the largest supplies of uranium in the world. This could have been an industry for us, with more guidance from government and without so many government bans—like Argentina. The OPAL reactor built at Lucas Heights in my electorate was designed and constructed by the Argentinians. The Argentinians are now doing small nuclear reactors for power generation. This is an area that we, with our great skills in engineering, could have been at the forefront of. Malcolm Fraser should at least be congratulated for that step to lift the ban on uranium sales back in 1977. Again, history has shown that he was correct.
The other area where history has shown that Malcolm Fraser was correct was in the area of competition law. The Fraser government held two inquiries into competition policy: one was the Swanson committee report in 1976 and the second was the Blunt report in 1979. Both those committees recommended the repeal of section 49, the provision against price discrimination in our Trade Practices Act. It was an overwhelming recommendation, but Malcolm Fraser stood solid. He knew the importance of small business to this country and he refused to repeal that section. Perhaps, in hindsight, it could have been modified. Anticompetitive price discrimination was finally repealed by the Keating government. It remains one of the greatest evils and greatest deterrents to small business and entrepreneurialism in this country that a small operator unfairly pays a higher price for the inputs of his goods and services in his business simply because he is small. Malcolm Fraser held the line on that, and for that he should be congratulated.
On our side of politics we also sometimes unfairly criticise Malcolm Fraser. Some on our side say he could have done more. They look at the work that Reagan did in the USA, creating so much wealth in that country, and at the reforms that Margaret Thatcher made. It is easy to look back and criticise Malcolm Fraser for not doing as much for our country as those great leaders did for their countries. To be fair to Malcolm Fraser, he was elected well before both Thatcher and Reagan. The success of their policies in their countries was not seen until Malcolm Fraser came to the end of his time, when he lost the election in 1983. Perhaps if he had continued on and had had the opportunity he would have followed more of those supply-side economic policies of Thatcher and Reagan that did create so much wealth in those countries.
In concluding this debate, I would like to make a particular comment, if I could, about comments unfortunately made in this debate by the member for Kingsford Smith about Margaret Thatcher, where he labelled her a 'racist'—such blatant partisan politics. The member for Kingsford Smith may have had disagreements with Margaret Thatcher in many areas, but to use a condolence motion to call another distinguished leader of another country a racist demeans this parliament—
Do you recall what you have been saying about Gough Whitlam during your speech.
I hope the member for Perth, sitting at the despatch box and interjecting, as I think she is—or perhaps a few ducks have come up from Lake Burley Griffin and are quacking down there—would disassociate herself from those comments. Otherwise,. I am not sure. They were shameful comments, they demean this parliament and they have no place whatsoever in a condolence motion.
In concluding my contribution to the condolence motion on Malcolm Fraser, he was the leader of this country during a very, very difficult time. One of his quotes when he came to politics goes back to 1953 when he was asked what persuaded him to run as a Liberal in parliament and he said that 'every man has a right to go his own way unhampered as long as he does not interfere with the rights of anyone else'. That is how Malcolm Fraser led his life. We may have disagreed with him and some of the decisions that he made later in life, such as support for Mugabe in Zimbabwe and criticising the immigration policies and border protection policies of the coalition government—he may have been on the wrong side of history on those—but look at his life in full. We and every Australian can be thankful that we had a man like Malcolm Fraser to lead this country at a most difficult time.
The first thing I would like to say on this condolence motion on John Malcolm Fraser, the Right Honourable former Prime Minister, is that this is a sad occasion. He was, after all, a father, a husband, a friend, a counsellor to many and a foe to some. But he was a human being, and it was a shock. He had not been ill, to our knowledge. He may not have been as well as he was, but he had not been ill. I was fixing a syphon in a dam—which he has probably done many times himself—when I had a call to say that Malcolm had passed away. The person who rang me was Petro, and he was clearly very upset—clearly very upset—because of the shock and the fact that Malcolm had only tweeted to the nation a few days before on the issue around China and South East Asia.
I recognise in this condolence motion that members have spoken of the political activity of the former Prime Minister, but I put to you the sadness of the occasion that this individual has passed away. As one journalist put it to me the other day over a cup of coffee, 'Malcolm does not pass away.' It was Laura Tingle and she said, 'No. I had an association with him. We have spoken on the same platform together. We have had cups of coffee afterwards.' It always surprised her the number of people who just walked straight up to Malcolm Fraser and interrupted him at the table, and that he never ever minded being interrupted. She actually told me the story that at Gough Whitlam's funeral, she looked up to the top of the stairs and there were Malcolm and Tamie being mobbed by a whole lot of people for a conversation around that time.
All of us, as you have heard in the condolence motion, have our memories of Malcolm Fraser. To many, now they are cherished memories. When we were celebrating, or recognising, Petro's gong of recent times, Malcolm and Tamie were there and Ted Baillieu and his wife Robyn were there, if I had known that the conversation I had with Malcolm that night was my last conversation perhaps it would have been a different conversation. There are probably many in my place today saying, 'If I had known that was my last conversation with Malcolm it might have been more extensive.' Each of us feels like this when we lose our own parents, don't we? It is a sad time. It is a heart-breaking time. It must be a heart-breaking time for Tamie and the children at this time. That is why it is important that we recognise the humanity of the man and the fact that he was human, the same as the rest of us.
In Petro Georgiou's article in The Age he reminds us that Malcolm Fraser, on hearing of Gough Whitlam's passing, observed, 'The line's broken'. In this world anyway, it is broken forever.' Petro Georgiou comments:
… the unique fusion of political strength, compassion and social conscience has also been broken. It is quite true that our link back to that time through Malcolm Fraser is now broken. Because of his death and Gough's death, the direct link is broken to that momentous time in Australia that too few remember. For those that have not forgiven Malcolm for the role that he played at that time and their view of it, it is on you now because, if you cannot forgive, Malcolm is not going to be affected by it. It is only you who will be affected, because Gough Whitlam reconciled with Malcolm and they became friends. Two men of great intellect became friends and actually stood on platforms together.
It was a different time during which Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister. For me, it was the time of Malcolm Fraser and the Liberals like Ian Macphee, 'Dick' Hamer, Senator David Hamer, my local member Barry Simon, Premier Lindsay Thompson, Fred Chaney, Alan Missen, a young Ted Baillieu and, in head office, Frank Hangan. It was a time of wisdom and the carriage of young members of the party like me. If you want to read about my direct responses to Malcolm Fraser's death and my interaction with it in those early days, you can read it in the Pakenham Gazette. I wrote a little piece in there about my direct action. But that is not the point for today.
I believe that Malcolm Fraser saw his responsibility and his charge to be to put the House back in order—to put the farm back in order—and to deliver confidence not only to this parliament and the people of Australia but to its institutions and everything that hangs off the parliament and the institutions. Now, he may have been shy and aloof to the world, but he certainly was not so to his family and friends. To the nation he was the stability that the nation needed at that time, and he did his job. He put the nation back on its feet, and then, in turn, I believe that he was the man for the time. He rose to be the head of his party. He did that by his ruthless political nature. He then became Prime Minister of this country at a time of difficult circumstances and then managed the country to the best of his ability with the cards that he was delivered until the new reformist government of the Hawke-Keating years came in when he was defeated. Petro once said to me, 'There's one thing you should learn about or prime ministers, Russell,' and I said, 'What's that?' He said, 'It always ends in tears. No Prime Minister wants to go. I don't think any member of this parliament wants to go, but one day or another we will.'
To this parliament I say this day in regard to Malcolm Fraser that he was a man of exceptional ability, he was a man for his time, he was a Prime Minister of his time, and my sincere condolences go to his friends and his family. But he left one very important legacy, for me. Two or three years ago in this House multiculturalism did not have a friend. That is why Maria Vamvakinou, the member for Calwell, and I got together and created the Parliamentary Friends of Multiculturalism. There were not many that turned up at the meeting, except for ambassadors and the like because they actually looked into Australia and saw how multiculturalism had been of great benefit to us. The member for Watson described how Malcolm Fraser had described multiculturalism thus:
Multiculturalism is about diversity, not division—it is about interaction not isolation. It is about cultural and ethnic differences set within a framework of shared fundamental values which enables them to co-exist on a complementary rather than competitive basis. It involves respect for the law and for our democratic institutions and processes.
Petro headed it. Malcolm Fraser stayed true to his principles, whether it be on the environment, Indigenous land rights or multiculturalism, even in the face of party room dissent. Vale John Malcolm Fraser.
I acknowledge the contribution from the member for McMillan and the heartfelt thoughts that he has offered in his contribution to this condolence debate. Losing a husband or losing a father is a traumatic experience for anyone, so I would like to dedicate the early parts of this speech to offering my heartfelt condolences to those who are left behind. I lost my father when I was eight years old and I understand wholeheartedly the pain that you go through and that you suffer for the many years when you lose someone who is such a significant part of your life.
I encourage the children of the Fraser family to look back on the wonderful contribution that your father made to this country and to stand proud, knowing not only that your father made a valuable, heartfelt contribution on an economic perspective and on a political perspective but also that he was a good, decent man. To Mrs Fraser, my heart goes out to you in the loss of a lifelong partner. There will be, into the future, moments of enormous grief and enormous loss in losing someone who you have committed your life. I wish you, on those lonely nights, all the best, knowing that you are in the thoughts of many members of both sides of this House and you are in their hearts.
The passing of the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser is deeply saddening news that has left all of us reflecting on his legacy and the important changes he enacted. Much of Malcolm Fraser's legacy lies outside the economic sphere; however, as a young man, I always admired the economic struggle he must have faced during his term as Prime Minister. During his time as our 22nd Prime Minister, between 1975 and 1983, Fraser set down a path of economic responsibility following the demise of the previous government after a time known as the Whitlam years. Fraser came to power and met a shocking economic occurrence: that of 'stagflation'. Until the early 1970s it was thought by most economists that high inflation and high unemployment could not occur at the same time. Keynesian economics at the time believed that if you revved the economy a bit faster, you would get more employment and output but stoke inflation; take the foot off the pedal and the opposite occurs. In 1975 inflation hit an alarming peak of 16 per cent. That is an enormous number given that the current fiscal settings of the Reserve Bank, which has carriage of monetary policy, have the inflation rate at between two and three per cent. When you consider 16 per cent was the peak during his reign, it would have been a task in itself to manage it.
In the decades that followed, Australia's unemployment grew fivefold, spiking in 1982 to as high as 10 per cent. But at the same time wages shot up, putting pressure on prices, which in turn put pressure on wages; and this so-called wage-price spiral was hard to break. The Fraser government, dealing with this phenomenon for the first time, took a pragmatic, if not principled, approach; that was the genesis of the then 'razor gang' which cut back on Commonwealth spending in a serious way. Spending was completely out of control under Whitlam; despite that, Fraser faced ardent pushback from members of his government who wanted to see more severe cuts and a more significant downsizing of government. Members at the time wanted a much more Thatcherite approach to the problems facing the Australian economy, yet Fraser resisted. He pushed for a more free-market direction. Government spending was cut, trade became more free and huge wage claims were curtailed, but he did not go all the way to Reaganism—the principle of which was that government was the problem—nor to Thatcher's radical individualism.
In many ways Malcolm Fraser approached the economy like a wise family doctor advising on dieting and weight loss: enjoy a little of everything in moderation. Without developed economic policy options available and with the new age of economic theory still on the desks of academics in overseas countries, Fraser did a truly remarkable job of steering a middle course. The gift of hindsight allows us to realise that there were areas in which Fraser could have improved; John Howard made the high-profile admission that he believed there could have been a 'bit more Lucas and a lot less Keynes'. But at that time Fraser was creating economic policy on the run and addressing emerging problems without the sophisticated number-crunching that policy makers adopt today.
Others will no doubt point to his variety of principled and moral stands. We have heard in this House from a range of speakers on both sides of the House about the Prime Minister's stand against apartheid. We have heard at length of his fight for Indigenous land rights and, in his post prime ministerial years, for a range of humanitarian causes. Malcolm Fraser was clearly a very decent human being. But it would be wrong to think that he was not also a good economic manager. In many ways he laid the groundwork for the Hawke-Keating years. He certainly was not a visionary like Keating, nor did major reforms take place on his watch. But he steadied the ship and the Australian economy is the beneficiary of a lot of his cost-cutting in that sector.
Australia can be justifiably proud of an approach to economics that sat us squarely between Europe and the United States. In the US, the champions of free enterprise toke a position of free enterprise at the cost of social values; however in Europe we see a much larger role for the state, even if that inhibits free enterprise. In Australia, under Fraser, we found the middle ground. When Malcolm Fraser became Prime Minister, that was all up for grabs. We could have become 'old Europe', or we could have become the United States and veered onto the path of radical individualism responsible for the debacle that came to both of those nations. Fraser helped us chart the middle course, and we should be very grateful for that.
In conclusion, I want to acknowledge Malcolm Fraser—and I believe this is the first time this has been raised in this House—for a contribution he made to Queensland. In my office, I have in my employ a lady by the name of Ruth Doyle. Ruth Doyle, before coming to work for me, had a small business in the small township of Birdsville. She is very complimentary about the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser. In 1978 he attended the Birdsville Races, where attendance was normally around 250 to 300 people. Malcolm Fraser, when he was the Prime Minister, went to the Birdsville Races, and he ran the country from a bush camp outside the township of Birdsville, still known today as 'the eight mile'. The Birdsville Races in Queensland are now a rite of passage for campers and those looking to have the regional experience of bush picnic races. Malcolm Fraser made a contribution and forever after, from that day when he was present at that race meeting, crowds have swollen to in excess of two and three thousand and, on occasion, five thousand.
Malcolm Fraser, for your contribution to our nation, I am truly humbled and grateful. To your family members who are left behind, the Buchholz family offers our deepest condolences. The people I represent in the electorate of Wright will, I know, join with me in offering our deepest condolences to a great Prime Minister. May he rest in peace.
I am very pleased to be able to speak on this condolence motion here today. The year 1975 was my political awakening. At the age of nine I was old enough to understand something of what was happening and young enough to have lots of questions—questions I have since taken half a lifetime to begin to answer.
Like many others in this place I handed out how-to-vote cards in the 'turn on the lights' election campaign. It was an absolutely extraordinary time, with extraordinary leaders. The loss of Malcolm Fraser has given us a chance to paint a portrait of the man as he was, not simply accept the portraits that more recent commentators have painted. There are myths to explode, alongside accepted beliefs to celebrate. I want to focus on two great legacies which are close to my heart and are not widely known—first, the depth of his fiscal conservatism, and, second, his deep commitment to rural and regional Australia.
He was an extraordinary fiscal conservative. In so many ways, as Prime Minister, he faced challenges similar to ours today. The Whitlam government had raised spending from around $65 billion to over $100 billion in today's dollars, in three short years. Whitlam had convinced himself and the rest of Australia that there was a magic pudding of government money, and all you had to do was help yourself.
Fraser knew this was a recipe for disaster. Between 1975 and 1983 spending hardly grew in real terms. The scale of that achievement is better understood now than 10 years ago. Fraser's ability to stop spending-growth in its tracks should be seen as a monumental achievement, and one that kept Australia from becoming Paul Keating's famous banana republic. Central to this was the need to ask government to be innovative and productive, wisely using the public purse as though it was its own.
But perhaps less well understood was Fraser's commitment to, and belief in, rural and regional Australia and agriculture. Many of his insights were well ahead of his time. In his maiden speech, Fraser anticipated the agricultural opportunity in northern Australia. He said:
I wish to direct my attention now to the north of Australia where large areas are, as yet, hardly touched. In the Kimberleys area there are two river valleys, those of the Ord and the Fitzroy rivers … When those rivers are dammed, and I say "when" sure in the knowledge that this project must eventually receive the attention of the Australian Government, it will be possible to develop irrigation farms in the areas below the dams. I believe that is a national project which must be tackled by the Australian Government before long. When the work is done, new communities of Australians will spring up where now there are a few sparsely peopled and extensive cattle stations.
I remind the House that Malcolm Fraser made that speech well before the Argyle dam was built.
He also had a keen sense of the extraordinary potential from agricultural innovation—a potential that we continue to see today. Referring, in his maiden speech, to innovation, he said:
In my own part of the world, I have seen great examples of this in the agricultural and pastoral spheres. Three blades of grass have been made to grow where formerly there was only one. Three and four sheep are being carried to the acre on land that formerly carried only half a sheep. Private people are doing this throughout the whole country and it is adding to the national wealth of Australia …
Fraser saw the formation of the National Farmers' Federation. His observations are as relevant today as they were back then. In a speech at the formation of the National Farmers' Federation, he said:
I have always believed, both as farmer and as a politician, that farmers and pastoralists need to speak with a strong voice. You can deal with government much better if that is so. You can do it much better if you are speaking with one voice rather than with the two or three or four divided voices.
He went on to talk about the importance of competitiveness and the need for market access and low tariffs into key markets. Indeed, he focused a significant part of his speech at the inauguration of the NFF on the importance of getting access to markets in the European Community and the United States and the reduction of tariffs into those countries.
Like most farmers, Fraser also had a very keen sense of the land. Not surprisingly, he had great sympathy for Indigenous people and the land rights movement. Indeed, in 1976 he introduced a breakthrough land rights bill to the parliament.
Before heading off to Oxford to study, he travelled around rural Victoria and New South Wales and he kept a journal. His feelings and observations were extraordinarily close to my feelings and observations at a similar time in my life. I too, travelled to Oxford to study before I had travelled anywhere in the world and, like Fraser, on arriving in Oxford I felt small, and aware of how little my education and background had prepared me for the big and urgent ideas of the time. In his journal, Fraser talked about his connection to the Australian landscape in graphic terms. He said:
All my life I will have memories of calm nights beneath the sky, of waking before dawn to see the sun rise in the east, and of driving over the lonely bush roads with dust eddying all around. The deformed Mallee scrub and the ghost farms, the great plains and endless sand hills, the majestic mountains, the beautiful valleys and pleasant hills. All these are part of Australia and part of my memories. Among them I will find my home.
Rest in peace, Malcolm Fraser.
I rise to associate myself with the eloquent contributions of colleagues on both sides of this House, following the death of former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser on 20 March 2015.
It is fitting that we reflect on the life and legacy of a man who was at the centre of political decision-making as leader of this great country. It is also fitting to begin my reflection on Malcolm's life and legacy by talking of his family, which sustained him during his years as Prime Minister and beyond. He and his wife Tamie had four children—and, later in life, they had grandchildren—who will no doubt miss him terribly.
I only met Tamie Fraser a few months ago on a domestic flight—a common meeting place for politicians and former politicians—as she and Malcolm travelled to yet another engagement. As is often the case with strong-willed people who inhabit this place, it is our partners—our families—who soften our sharper edges. And so I believe it was with Tamie, who brought gentleness and humour to balance what some saw as Malcolm's gruffness, and who made such a wonderful contribution as Australia's first lady, and as mother to the couple's children. I express my sincere condolences to Tamie and the broader Fraser family. It is fair to say that, although I had met Malcolm previously, I did not know him well. As we sat across the aircraft aisle from each other, I welcomed the opportunity to hear his views on topical issues. He was certainly definitive in his perspectives and beliefs. It gave me cause to reflect on Malcolm's leadership of our country and his contribution to some of the big issues in our history as a dominant figure of Australian politics during the 1970s and 80s. We have all heard many competing perspectives on what leadership is but, fundamentally, it is an influence relationship—engaging others, explaining what needs to be done, persuading and harnessing their individual contributions towards the attainment of a collective goal. In politics it is often about identifying the big issues confronting our society and determining how to address them.
By any measure, Malcom was at the centre of momentous issues in our nation's history. As politicians, during debate in this House we also often reflect about values as fundamental touchstones and determinants of our action. Many things distinguish how so many of Malcolm's actions will be remembered. For me, the most compelling is his courage. I do not mean courage in a physical sense, but the courage to take on the challenges of the day—often unpopular challenges—and to do what is right, to speak out and to lead with the power of words. At a time of great political uncertainty, Malcolm confronted extraordinary pressures in 1975 and the years that followed. I know many of the contributions made by my colleagues about Malcolm have understandably touched on the Dismissal, and I do not intend to overly re-till that soil beyond saying that the people, who are always the final judges on these matters, gave Malcolm Fraser and his government repeated overwhelming endorsements following the Dismissal.
Inflation at the time was almost 18 per cent, economic growth was stagnant and unemployment rampant. The country faced severe recession and, inexplicably, the Whitlam government sought to spend its way out of trouble and drastically increased government expenditure as a ratio of gross domestic product, which rose by an unprecedented six per cent in just three years. The cumulative impact of high inflation, rapidly rising costs of labour and spiralling government spending was a potent and dangerous economic mix. Overlaid onto this was the political scandal of the Khemlani Loans Affair, with ministers of the crown behaving in ways that were inconsistent with accepted governance and accountability standards. The challenge confronting Fraser was immense, and I laud his courage to do what was necessary to restore Australia's political dignity and credibility. And he won the people's judgement at three successive elections.
There are other things he did: environmentalist, humanitarian—my colleagues have touched on all of those major achievements in his life. By any measure, Malcolm continued to contribute to good causes after retiring from politics, in 1983, spending 15 years as chair of CARE Australia, which encompassed five years as president of CARE International. And so we farewell Malcolm Fraser—courageous, principled, often outspoken and at times misunderstood. He delivered repeatedly on the classical Liberal aspiration that prioritises the right of the individual. He lived a fortunate life defined by a strong commitment to the service of others, and put his shoulder firmly into the endless struggle to make Australia tomorrow a better place than it was today. He made an extraordinary contribution to Australia's political history, which this House quite rightly acknowledges. I again extend my sincere condolences to Malcolm Fraser's wife, Tamie, their children, family and friends.
Vale Malcolm Fraser. We mourn your passing.
I also rise today to place on record my respects on the death of the Right Honourable Malcolm Fraser, and I want to associate myself with the comments very eloquently put by the member for Bass. Before I reflect on some of the areas of achievement that I think Malcolm Fraser should be best known for, I want to offer my condolences to his family. I think that in these situations Malcolm Fraser's roles as a husband, father and grandfather or friend are in many respects more important than reflecting on the great things he did in his life, notwithstanding how important they are. So I do offer my condolences to his family, first and foremost.
There is no doubt that Malcolm Fraser was a great man. You do not become the Prime Minister of Australia unless you have attributes that many of us could just wish for. Malcolm Fraser's determination to do what was right for his country, notwithstanding the personal animosity and quite disgusting treatment he received, must be admired. He was the man who took a lot of very rough treatment, and did so for the sake of the country. That is why I think it is always worthwhile reflecting on his single greatest political achievement: ultimately rescuing Australia from what at the time was the worst government we had ever seen. Let us not forget the profligacy of the Whitlam government, the borderline corruption following the Khemlani Affair and a whole host of other issues. Malcolm Fraser saved Australia from that chaos and division and, for eight years as our 22nd Prime Minister, he was able to unite Australians. Again, I think most people would not be able to withstand the treatment he received, but the fact he did so indicates the love he had for his country. That is what I will remember him most for—the love of Australia and the love of making sure that ours remained the greatest country on earth.
It is clear that he articulated Australia's feelings with the 'Turn on the Lights' campaign in 1975. He went on to win the greatest political victory at a federal level ever. So perhaps over the years we have diminished how important and successful he was as a Prime Minister. He was extraordinarily successful: three election wins and seeing off a very flawed but potent political foe in Gough Whitlam are some things that I think all Liberals admire, and I think Australians should be very thankful.
Another area of his legacy that I want to touch on was his staunch anticommunism. Again, many people in my cohort—in my age group—perhaps do not appreciate the insidious impact that communism may have had on this country were it not for people like Malcolm Fraser, his good friend BA Santamaria and others who valiantly fought against people whose allegiances were more with the Soviet Union than they were with Australia. Many of those were in the upper echelons of the Labor Party. So, again, Malcolm Fraser saving us—with help from many people, but being a key person to save us from that insidious movement is something that all Australians now derive benefits from even though most of us do not know it. Most of us do not appreciate how tough it was and that the inevitable victory that we had over communism was not inevitable at the time. Nobody thought it was inevitable. It was because of people like Malcolm Fraser that we were able to win that war and we have the country that we have got now.
Another area of recognition that I want to highlight is his obvious compassion towards Vietnamese refugees fleeing persecution after the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese communists Lots of people in the condolence motion have spoken about his extraordinary generosity and bringing the Australian public with him to help the over 50,000 Vietnamese refugees. But, again, we accept multiculturalism now, and I am a beneficiary of multiculturalism, having a father who was born overseas. We take it for granted that we cherish our society and our multicultural background, but it was not the case for Vietnamese refugees until Malcolm Fraser came along. Again, the former government had quite a callous disregard for Vietnamese refugees and was more interested in being in support of a communist regime in North Vietnam than looking after Vietnamese refugees who had worked with Australian forces and worked with Australian diplomats.
But Malcolm Fraser changed all that. He dispensed with the callous approach of the Whitlam government with regard to South Vietnamese refugees and he opened up Australia. Obviously the over 50,000 Vietnamese refugees and now many hundreds of thousands of their progeny who are living in Australia and striving successfully no doubt appreciate that John Malcolm Fraser who singularly should take the most credit with regard to that.
I also want to highlight that Malcolm Fraser was rightly proud of the government that he led. You are not going to hear from me any apologies for the often cited criticism of Malcolm Fraser's government over eight years that it was a do-nothing government. Nothing could be further from the truth. As has been highlighted earlier in this debate, in three short years the Whitlam government took expenditures in today's terms from $65 billion to $105 billion, profligacy that no government in this country has ever sought to impose on the country. The fact that Malcolm Fraser was able to arrest that trend, was able to bring back fiscal responsibility is a task that we should not again diminish 30 or 40 years later. I understand that it would have been extraordinarily difficult to have done that, particularly in a time when the Australian polity was so divided and the Australian community for a time was quite divided. But his sure hand, his steadfastness, his commitment to Australia and his ability to bear the burden of responsibility, accept the treatment that he received and still plough ahead was something that all of us must be thankful for.
So I agree that, ultimately, when he conceded defeat in his often quoted words that Australia was in a better condition when he handed it over than when he received it, it is the most important thing that I think we can remember. So again I would like to pass on my deepest condolences to Malcolm Fraser's family. I want to reaffirm that there is no doubt he was a great man and a great Liberal Prime Minister.
I am going to break the confidence and the seal of the party room. There are a bunch of kids up there in the gallery listening to us. In the party room Senator Brett Mason announced it was his last party room. He went to how blessed we are to be in this place, how lucky we are to be in this place He raised an amazing thing. We still have Philip Ruddock, the member for Berowra, in this House, who served with Malcolm Fraser, who served with Robert Menzies, and in the first Menzies government Billy Hughes was there. Billy Hughes was in Australia's very first parliament in 1901, so people like me have only three or four degrees of separation from the birth of our federation. That is one of the coolest things I have ever heard, and it lets you know just how blessed we are to be in this place.
I think, when you go to the life of John Malcolm Fraser, when you do sit down, what a lot of people gloss over here is the toll this place will take on you and the toll it takes on people who sit in that front chair. Malcolm Fraser was two years younger than I am today when he left office after 28 years in this place. I came in with you, Deputy Speaker Griggs, and you are a damn sight younger than me, but I am now 55. I have been here for coming on five years, and Malcolm Fraser had already had his 28-year career and was gone two years ago in my life.
I never met him. I saw him once in a lounge, but I never had the guts to go up and say g'day. I never voted for him. My first election was in 1980. I was a very young 20-year-old and more intent on filling my car, filling my belly and getting the next beer. When he floated the world parity pricing on oil, it hit my hip-pocket and I could not stand the bloke. I did not vote for him in 1980 or 1983. The thing you have to understand, is what he stood for. The man had principles.
A lot of people here have spoken about the dismissal and the way that it seemed to be more collegiate in those days. I disagree. When you look at principle and that sort of thing, I do not think anyone would have played a harder hand than him in the dismissal. To compare parliaments and eras is like trying to compare cricketers and footballers or different styles of football, and who would be good today and who would not be good. All you can do is play the ball that is in front of you. All you can do is play by the rules that are applied now. There is no way in the world that a man today could have a 28-year career or be in the parliament for over 12 years and not get a promotion to develop his craft.
A lot has been said about the friendship between Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, but the friendship stretches across the parliament. There are friendships here, now—and the member for McMillan bears it for everyone, and I see the member for Melbourne Ports there. He used to sit next to the previous member for Banks, Daryl Melham, and Russell Broadbent. The member for McMillan came in at the same time. They have regular dinners. They get on very well. In this place you can get on with people across the board. I played a little bit of football in my day—not very well—but the thing is you have to leave it on the pitch. We come in here for an hour-and-a-half each day. At two o'clock we go on and belt the living daylights out of each other, and we go off afterwards and get back on with the work.
Whether I agree with what Malcolm Fraser did, whether I agree with his economic policies, is moot. I cannot do anything about it. What I can do is express my admiration for someone who stuck at it for so long. What I can do is tell people how much the job must take out of the Prime Minister—any Prime Minister—how much stress it adds and how many years it takes off your life. To come through that, to be in here, is very lucky. To get to be Prime Minister—the air is so rare; anyone who can take that step and commit so totally that they can make that office deserves the respect of everybody in this place.
I still have both my parents with me. I do not speak to them often enough. I do not see them anywhere near often enough. As the member for Wright said, to lose your dad is a big thing, no matter what age you are. To lose your mum or your dad is a big thing. So my condolences go to the Fraser family, to Tammy, their children and their extended family. I do wish them all the best and I pass my deep condolences to the family. Vale John Malcolm Fraser. He stood for something. He was a man, and he was a big man—a big man in this country and a big man on a page of this country's history. I thank the House.
Abraham Lincoln once said: 'Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.' I believe this sentiment to be true. Indeed, power is truly the test of the character of a man. When I reflect on my own history in politics and the times I saw Malcolm Fraser—like the member for Herbert I did not always agree with him—I respected the fact that he was principled. I believe that Malcolm Fraser, as was reported recently in the media, had an important influence on the changing relations of countries within the British Commonwealth and on shaping Australia's relationships with the countries of the East and South-East Asia to economic rationalisation. Though economic rationalisation was introduced in policy debate during his term of office, his government reflected more traditional principles in financial management and fiscal policy.
Malcolm was truly a statesman. He moved from being a tough, feared leader to someone who took a very principled stance on many issues in his later life. Today it is with great sadness and a sense of honour that I give my condolences in the parliament to a political hero of mine. Malcolm always employed the qualities of integrity, honesty and respect. He always remained true to his principles; I did not see him waver from those. When we recollect those who have passed, we often speak with hypocritical positivity. We vilify them in life but we praise them in death.
The Malcolm I met and knew would never have appreciated that hypocrisy. Malcolm was a straightshooter. What you saw was what you got. I believe it was fostered in him from growing up on the farm. Malcolm truly had the honour of a man from the land. Malcolm was a man of his word. A deal was made on a handshake. There was no pretentiousness. Malcolm never believed the Canberra hype and was a servant of the people, in the true sense of the term.
Another great mark of a leader is their ability to unite the people and nurture the civil state. I will never forget when Malcolm Fraser attended the early rallies in Forrest Place in Perth. The anger was burning within the hearts of protesters. Equally, I attended the rallies that Gough Whitlam held in the same place because I was interested in looking at the contrast between two men who at the time were bitter in their approach to each other, but who later in life became enjoined in the way that they thought on many issues and in the conversations and the friendship that they developed.
Whilst the anger was burning, Malcolm still had the ability to connect to all and to extinguish some of that angry blaze. That day, Malcolm allowed those burning protestors to have their say, to vent and to express their anger at what he had done. But then I saw them quieten down and listen to a leader who was prepared to stand on the steps of the post office in Forrest Place and take it on the chin but who, at the same time, expressed his views about what this country needed in direction. I never saw Malcolm as being the enemy of his countrymen. Sadly, Forrest Place is no longer Australia's favourite political arena, but the memory of this moment will forever feature in Western Australia's history.
I want to emphasise the importance of the character of the man. Malcolm was a leader with a spirit of peace; a man who was of strength in wanting to achieve the things that he believed in for all Australians. And that has been reflected in many of the speeches that have been delivered in this chamber in recognition of the contribution that Malcolm Fraser made in his time as Prime Minister and, equally, in the time he served on many committees and in events, and in the support that he gave those who he believed he should lend his weight to.
What always fascinated me was the relationship between he and Gough Whitlam, given what happened with the dismissal. You often see human behaviour display an anger and a hatred that resides and sits for many years. And they should have hated each other, but Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser shared a bond—a special bond that united them as friends. They may not have agreed with each other with regard to their opposing policies, but these two adversaries shared a fervent will for the good, and that was for the good of their countrymen.
Malcolm pursed this goal for common goodness with his firm principles, his proud integrity and his devoted consistency. Malcolm believed in his doctrine and he stood by it—and he stood by it quite strongly. We saw that in evidence so many times. I hear of the folklore that is associated with the party room and the stances that people took, but he still remained committed to what he believed was best for this country.
When we begin our journeys as politicians and public servants for the good people of Australia, we align ourselves with the principles of our founding ideological fathers: Edmund Burke, if we are libertarians, or Marx and Engels, amongst others, if we are ones who believe in social collectivism. In the portrait of a politician, we are branded by the colours of our tribe. Our policies illustrate in colour who we are in principle.
Malcolm was principally a true-blue liberal. In the pages of history, Malcolm will always stand as an image for us all of what the true meaning of being a libertarian stands for. Teddy Roosevelt said it best:
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official …
In essence, this is to look at the good of what is needed for the community in which we live and work. This is true liberalism, and this accurately articulates how Malcolm saw his place of privilege in the political arena.
I believe that there are three 'P's in politics: the people, the party and the policy, coupled with a vision as to how you will lead a country forward for the greater good of all—even though your ilk is either Labor or Liberal. Malcolm was a leader for the people, and he demonstrated this so many times in the past. And while towards the end many from his own side of politics no longer loved him, Malcolm continued to lobby for change—especially for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the issues that reflected the diversity of Australian society and social justice: right until the very end.
Malcolm was the leader who created a constitutional crisis, the Prime Minister who dramatically reformed policy and who, I believe, never forgot that he was a leader for the little guy. He was a true libertarian, who would always fight for the less fortunate in our society. Freedom should uphold no confines of monetary, social or racial preference, and that is what I believe that Malcom did.
I met with Malcolm five times in my life. He congratulated me on being the first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives. But he also spoke to me about the lobbying that was needed to address some of the issues that faced not only Indigenous Australians but those who were refugees and those whose social circumstance did not give them the advantages that many others in our society have the benefit of. He lobbied for change and was unflinching in his pursuit to close the gap for Indigenous Australians. I remember a discussion I had with him and Fred Chaney over some of the vision that they had and the changes that we needed to accomplish bilaterally and in unison with all parties of this parliament. He believed, given the right circumstances and the right driver, that you could effect changes if you included people in the process—particularly the people affected.
Malcolm also believed in multiculturalism, and many have spoken of this. During his time in government, we welcomed the re-settlement of tens of thousands of displaced Vietnamese people in Australia—people who have added a rich and new dimension to our cultural identity as a nation. I have a Vietnamese family that I spend time with. When I first met her, she was the seamstress who always altered the cuffs on my trousers. I have got to know her and her husband and their children. They are a fantastic example of Vietnamese refugees who came to Australia by boat and were held in camps, but who then went on to grasp the opportunity given to them by the Fraser government. She has always said that Australia is her home—it is the home of her children and it is her and her husband's future. But this is only a small representation of the impact that Malcolm has had on Australian society.
In reality, his mark will be everlasting. I extended my sympathies to Malcolm's enormously supportive wife, Tamie, their children and their grandchildren. Today I have said goodbye to a patriot, a leader, an idol and a friend. May we all remember Malcolm, and may his pursuit of the prosperity of our nation and the quality and the recognition of the people who live within it live on within us all. Rest in peace, Malcolm.
It is a great honour to rise and pay tribute to the 22nd Prime Minister of Australia, the Right Honourable Malcolm Fraser. I first met Malcolm Fraser when I was 11 years old, when he was Leader of the Opposition. I was with my mother Ann and nine-year-old sister Jodie at the Geelong racetrack. My sister had broken her arm and was wearing a plaster cast.
Being someone who was in despair over the way in which Australia was being governed at that time, Mum suggested to Jodie that Mr Fraser was going to become Australia's next Prime Minister and that she should ask for his autograph. Mr Fraser signed her plaster cast with grace and good humour.
Of course, within a matter of months, there was the constitutional crisis of November 1975. Within a matter of weeks, Australians had declined to maintain the rage. These were such turbulent political times, but Malcolm Fraser's decision to block supply was entirely endorsed by the Australian people.
On 13 December 1975, the coalition won the federal election with the largest majority in Australia's history, and Malcolm Fraser went on to serve as Australia's Prime Minister until 1983, winning elections in 1977 and 1980.
I last saw Malcolm Fraser some two months ago when I ran into him in Collins Street in Melbourne and we had a really lovely chat. He gave me some wonderful advice as a regional federal MP. He said to me: 'Travel to every corner of your electorate; fight hard for the issues that matter to your constituents; and be tenacious, determined and principled.' These were the values that he held close to his heart, as the member for Wannon for 28 years and as Prime Minister of Australia from 1975 to 1983.
In contrast to his reputation as a shy and reserved man, I was struck by Malcolm Fraser's warmth and passion on this occasion. He spoke about how, if a minister had not responded to correspondence he had written on behalf of a constituent within three weeks, he would literally chase the minister down the corridor seeking an answer. He impressed upon me that the honour of serving one's constituents is central to the honour of serving as a member of parliament.
I met Malcolm Fraser on quite a few occasions but I did spend a memorable few hours with him in the backseat of a Channel 7 helicopter when I was a young reporter. I had flown to Nareen—his property in the Western District that he loved so dearly—to interview him. Mr Fraser was heading to Melbourne to catch an international flight, so we offered him a lift. It was not the most conducive environment in which to have a chat, but I did get the impression that he did not much care for journalists.
Malcolm Fraser rallied against injustice, discrimination and racism and was a champion of the environment. While not reputed as a greater reformer, I consider this to be unfair. He instituted many great reforms: he was fiercely opposed to apartheid and held the South African regime to account with a conviction that won so many hearts and minds during his time as Prime Minister and beyond; he was deeply engaged in the fortunes of Indigenous people, putting in place Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory; under his leadership, multiculturalism became national policy—and, for the Vietnamese community, that he welcomed in large numbers as refugees after the Vietnam War, he will forever be their hero; he oversaw the establishment of the Family Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia, the Human Rights Commission, the Australian Federal Police, the creation of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and SBS; he blocked sand mining on Fraser Island, proclaimed Kakadu National Park and the first stage of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; and he enacted the Whale Protection Act, ending whaling in Australian waters.
In many respects, one of Malcolm Fraser's greatest reforms was to restore economically responsible government. He was the steadying ship after a time of great economic upheaval under the Whitlam government. Malcolm Fraser recognised that socially progressive policies must sit hand in hand with good economic management.
In his last term in particular, there were criticisms of Malcolm Fraser's failure to embrace a market based economic reform agenda—and this does need to be acknowledged. But, as we have seen in this 44th Parliament, reform in the national interest is not an easy road.
That Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam were able to forge a lasting friendship after the deep and bitter divide created by the Dismissal is a great credit to both men. As Prime Minister Abbott said in his statement:
The friendship he built in later life with Gough Whitlam spoke volumes about the character of both men at the centre of the crisis: in their own different ways, they were both fierce Australian patriots.
After he left politics, Malcolm Fraser continued to be a warrior for issues about which he cared deeply—human rights, refugees and Indigenous Australians. He established Care Australia and served on a number of international eminent persons bodies.
I recognise also that Malcolm Fraser disagreed with a number of our government's policies, particularly in relation to asylum seekers. When he left the Liberal Party, he explained it was a case of the Liberal Party leaving him, and not the other way around. I respectfully disagree: the Liberal Party never left John Malcolm Fraser. Our party is a broad church, and disagreements about matters of individual liberty and the rights of the individual are integral to our capacity as a party to modernise, grow and adapt to new challenges and new ways of thinking.
It is wonderful to hear the contributions to this condolence motion by members from both sides of the House. How I wish that, during his lifetime, Malcolm Fraser could have heard these many tributes to his achievements in life. How I wish he could have known how proud we are of his legacy. This is perhaps a lesson for us all. I felt the same way during the condolence motion in the Victorian parliament for my mother, Ann, after her death in 2002, when so many members from both sides of the House joined together to celebrate her life and her achievements. I am heartened, however, that Malcolm's widow, Tamie, who was such an important part of Malcolm Fraser's success and such a wonderful asset from the minute he met her, as well as his children, Hugh, Mark, Angela and Phoebe, and their families, have the opportunity to hear about the great and principled man that Malcolm Fraser was—a man who governed with strength and compassion, forever a Liberal giant.
To his family I offer my sincere condolences. Vale John Malcom Fraser. May you rest in peace.
History will show that Malcolm Fraser was a friend of Tasmania. This week in the Tasmanian state parliament both Premier Hodgman and Minister for State Growth Matthew Groom expressed their fond memories of their fathers, who had both served as ministers under the man who they described as a political giant.
Will Hodgman's father, Michael, and Matthew's father, Ray, served as ministers under Malcolm Fraser before going on to successful state political careers. Ray Groom, of course, became Tasmanian Premier. Mr Fraser had a soft spot for Tasmania, where he enjoyed his fly fishing. He was very skilled in that area and appreciated the quality of the trout fishing in Tasmania's lakes and rivers, which he regarded as some of the very best in the world for the sport he loved. He and his wife, Tamie, maintained a fishing shack in the Central Highlands, in my electorate, for many years, where they both indulged their fly-fishing passions.
I note the comments this week of Senator Abetz about how Malcolm Fraser, soon after he became Prime Minister, recognised the need for the special treatment of Tasmania to take into account the Tasmanian freight travelling interstate. If nothing else, this is one of Malcolm Fraser's truly great legacies. In recent weeks Prime Minister Abbott has added to that legacy that the Liberal Party has in respect of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. It should never be ignored that it was Malcolm Fraser who introduced that scheme in the first instance, in 1976. I am sure that he would be very, very delighted with Prime Minister Abbott's recent announcement of the extra money for northbound export freight that will be included within the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. This is our Hume Highway; this is our Pacific Highway.
In 1980, Malcolm Fraser established the Australian Maritime College at Launceston as a world-class centre for maritime studies and expertise. The legacy of that far-sighted investment is still paying dividends today, as students from all around the world come to my state to study at the Australian Maritime College. As well, in 1981 Malcolm Fraser moved the Australian Antarctic Division from Melbourne, where it was at the time, to Kingston in southern Tasmania, and expanded it, recognising Tasmania's strong scientific and practical links with Antarctica and Macquarie Island. This was, again, a very far sighted decision that has played to one of our state's natural geographic strengths. Clearly, the investment that has continued to be made in the area of Antarctic research spreads the value of that investment right across Tasmania to this day.
As Premier Hodgman said, Malcolm Fraser, who was a family friend of his father's at the time Fraser was Prime Minister, gave Australia a strong sense of direction. That was true also of the state of Tasmania. Ray Groom remembered Malcolm Fraser as a formal person who was fundamentally shy but a great Australian—a statesman who might not have operated so well with the repetition that is sometimes demanded in the roles that we play in the business today, with the way the media covers the business that we are involved in. The former farmer was a thinking person who always had firm views, which he expressed forthrightly up to this death. His farming background meant that he had a great understanding of rural and regional Australia and, as I have highlighted, particularly Tasmania.
One of my predecessors in the federal seat of what was Wilmot, which became the federal seat of Lyons, Max Burr, said that his favourite memory of Malcolm Fraser occurred at a 50th birthday party at Old Parliament House. He said that Michael Hodgman, who was the member for Denison at the time, wrote a song to the tune of Jesus Loves Methe lyrics are 'Jesus loves me, this I know'—but his was entitled Malcolm Loves Me. There were about four verses to the song, which finished with, 'Backbenchers, to him we belong, because we are weak but he is strong.' The parliament, class of 1975—
Debate interrupted.
This Saturday the people of the New South Wales North Coast will have an opportunity to vote for real change in our area. They will have an opportunity to get rid of the wreckers that are the National Party. The fact is the National Party have failed the people of the North Coast, with their very harsh cuts, their cruel new taxes and their plans to expand harmful coal seam gas mining in our area. Locals should put the National Party last to send them a strong message. They should also send the National Party a strong message that we reject their plans to sell off the electricity network. We totally reject that. Locals know that selling off the network means that their electricity bills will just go up and up and up. That is why they just do not trust the National Party.
In contrast to all this, New South Wales Labor will invest in our hospitals, our schools and our roads on the North Coast—all areas that have been neglected by the National Party. New South Wales Labor stands with the community in opposing the sale of our electricity network. It will be kept in public hands. Very importantly, New South Wales Labor will ban all coal seam gas mining and all unconventional mining right across the North Coast. This reflects the community's view. We have listened to the community and we stand with them in opposing harmful coal seam gas mining. Our plan is to ban it all across the North Coast.
So I say to the people of the North Coast: on Saturday, make your vote count. Vote Labor for more investment in important services and vote Labor for a gas field free North Coast.
I rise to share with the House the coalition government's commitment to support Australians with disability. I was pleased to see the announcement made by the Assistant Minister for Social Services, Hon. Mitch Fifield, and the New South Wales Minister for Disability Services, the Hon. John Ajaka, about the early rollout of the NDIS in Western Sydney and particularly within the electorate of Macquarie. The Abbott coalition government will commit $14.7 million in 2015-16 for the NDIS in Western Sydney and the Baird government will commit $8.7 million. People with disability, their supporters and families should be encouraged that the scheme is proceeding so well in New South Wales. This is a reason to vote for the coalition on Saturday.
The NDIS gives choice and control to people with disability, empowering them to choose the support they need to achieve their goals. An early start to the rollout of the NDIS will help to address the considerable unmet needs of people with disability. Some 2,000 children and young people with disabilities aged between nought and 17 years of age and their families in the Hawkesbury, Blue Mountains and Penrith area of Western Sydney will benefit. Participants will have their needs assessed and then work with planners to develop a plan for their support under the NDIS. Both the Baird New South Wales government and the Abbott federal government are committed to a better deal for people with disability and to increasing their choice and control over the services that they use.
The coalition government is committed to rolling out the NDIS in full, and I am pleased that people with disability and their carers and families across these three areas will benefit from the NDIS before the year's end. Both the Baird and the federal coalition governments are— (Time expired)
On Saturday the people of New South Wales have the opportunity to get rid of a bad government, a government that has shown that it is in the pocket of developers. In the Hunter and on the Central Coast, all but one state Liberal member have been forced to either resign or move to the crossbench because they have taken illegal donations from developers.
What about Milton?
There has been a steady procession of Liberals from our area appearing before ICAC. It is interesting to hear the member for Dobell calling out, because she has also appeared before ICAC—something that is totally unacceptable.
But the Baird government's problems do not stop with ICAC. The Baird government's Smart and Skilled program has been an attack on TAFE, an attack on students and has led to massive job losses. Mike Baird failed to stand up to Tony Abbott when he ripped $16 billion out of New South Wales hospitals, when he cut pension indexation, leaving 775,000 pensioners in New South Wales worse off, when he axed the schoolkids bonus and when Tony Abbott kicked 400,000 New South Wales families off family tax benefit.
And now Mike Baird wants to sell off our electricity assets. Under Mike Baird, electricity prices have only gone one way, and that is up. We need in New South Wales a government that will stand up to Tony Abbott and not sell off our electricity. (Time expired)
Firstly I would like to correct the previous speaker, the member for Shortland, and say that the Baird government will be leasing less than half of their assets. Out of the leasing of less than half the assets, they will buy a whole heap more assets and at the end of the day the people of New South Wales will own both.
What that means is more than two million people will move into Western Sydney over the next 25 years. This is a city about which the former Premier, Bob Carr, said, 'The city is full.' So the city was choked, with no infrastructure. It is great to see the member for Grayndler here, a big advocate for infrastructure for the people of Western Sydney.
What we want to see is $3.6 billion worth of infrastructure being given to the people of Western Sydney, by both the state government and the federal government together—$2.9 billion from the feds, $1.1 billion from the state government. Then we look at the M4. The M4 will see an upgrade from the Blue Mountains all the way into the WestConnex project and then around through to the M5. This will be more than two Snowy Mountains schemes—let me repeat that: more than two Snowy Mountains schemes.
Really, the choice is simple. You vote on Saturday for a government that will continue to make New South Wales No. 1. They made New South Wales No. 1. They took New South Wales from being last in the country to No. 1. There is only one choice: vote for the Baird government.
On Saturday, anybody who cares about the future of young people, the future opportunity for those workers who have been restructured out of industries and are going through difficult times, anybody who is concerned about women trying to re-enter the workforce, will vote 1 for TAFE. If you want to vote 1 for TAFE, it means you put the Liberal-National coalition last. Let me tell you what their record is on TAFE. They have cut $1.7 billion out of schools and TAFEs across New South Wales—$1.7 billion. Have a talk to people in local areas; they will tell you that the cost of doing a TAFE course is now thousands of times the original cost. The Smart and Skilled policy is exactly as both Luke Foley and the shadow minister, Ryan Park, describe it—dumb and dumber. Add to that their absolute shambles of implementing a new computer system. This has seen many students turned away, not able to enrol, not sure what their course is going to cost, and they are devastated by how much they are going to have to fork out for TAFE. It is hard enough to get a start and to get the qualifications you need. All the Baird government has done is make it so much more difficult. In comparison we have a tremendous shadow minister in Ryan Park, under Luke Foley's leadership. Put them in charge of TAFE on Sunday to save it.
I would like to congratulate the Nabiac Show Society for putting on a great 2015 Nabiac Show. I would like to compliment Cherie Paterson, David Reeve and other members of the committee. I am pleased to say that I was joined by the member for Myall Lakes, Stephen Bromhead, who has been doing a fantastic job for the electors of the Myall Lakes electorate. At the Camden Haven Show I was accompanied by Mrs Leslie Williams, who has been a brilliant advocate for the people of the Port Macquarie electorate.
Melinda Pavey is taking over from Andrew Stoner as the candidate for the Oxley electorate. Andrew Stoner has performed a magnificent job for the people of New South Wales and, in particular, for the people of the Oxley electorate. Melinda Pavey has 12 years experience in the upper house of the New South Parliament. What a great advocate she will be for the Oxley electorate. Michael Johnsen, who is the candidate for the electorate of Upper Hunter has had eight years in local government, has been involved in political decisions and is very experienced in the commercial world. He has been campaigning very hard to continue the good work of George Souris after 26 years in state parliament. The people in my electorate of Lyne, with four state electorates, have excellent candidates available to represent them at the New South Wales election on Saturday. I can commend all of them to the electors. The New South Wales government has done a great job getting New South Wales back on track and being the No. 1 state in the Commonwealth. (Time Expired)
() (): On Saturday the Baird government wants the voters of New South Wales to step into the unknown. They want them to vote them back into government even though there is an ASIC investigation into Mike Baird's office over the removal of the headline 'Bad for the budget' from a report about electricity privatisation. Mike Baird has refused to answer questions about that unprecedented intervention to doctor a report. The people of New South Wales deserve better. The people of Victoria had to wait for the Tories to lose office before they found out that the East West Link had a cost-benefit analysis of 0.45. Infrastructure has to be transparent. What we are seeing is that they are hiding from the people of New South Wales. This morning, Mike Baird reaffirmed that there is no plan B—all of their promises fall over if they cannot get electricity privatisation through the upper house. The upper house members will know it is bad for the budget according to their own independent analysis. Voters will also know that there is a two-for-one deal on Saturday—get rid of Mike Baird and you will get rid of Tony Abbott. If you want Bill Shorten as the next Prime Minister—or Malcolm Turnbull or Julie Bishop—vote Labor this Saturday. (Time Expired)
This Saturday the people in my electorate have an important decision to make. They can choose to re-elect the Baird Liberal government or return to the chaos and incompetence that we witnessed four years ago. The Baird government has, among many other achievements, returned New South Wales to being the fastest growing economy in Australia, dramatically improved transport across the state and spent nearly $5 billion to rebuild and expand hospitals.
In my federal electorate of Reid I have three state seats—Drummoyne, Strathfield and Auburn. In Drummoyne, which was neglected by Labor for 49 years, in just four years John Sidoti has delivered upgrades to local ferry wharfs and train stations, obtained funding of $150 million for Concord Hospital and committed $2 million to upgrade the popular Bay Run.
In Strathfield, after 16 years of Labor neglect, in four years Charles Cassuscelli has obtained funding for new public schools; has upgraded, or is in the process of upgrading, Strathfield, Flemington, Croydon and Homebush railway stations; and has spent over $1.2 million on numerous community facilities serving our multicultural communities.
In Auburn, the Liberal candidate Ronney Oueik has served his local community as mayor with distinction. Ronney's opponent is Luke Foley. Luke Foley does not live in Auburn; many locals have asked me if he even knows how to get there. Regardless, he stands in stark contrast to Ronney, who has spent his entire life embedded within his community.
On Saturday, I encourage my electorate to support John, Charles and Ronney and to back Baird.
The member for Grayndler is absolutely right: if the people of New South Wales vote out Mike Baird on Saturday, Tony Abbott will be gone by Monday. I suspect there are 39 members of the backbench on the other side who are thinking that they could convince their colleagues in New South Wales to do the deal and save the country from perhaps the most chaotic leader it has ever had in Tony Abbott. Not only does this government dump every promise it has made; it has actually dumped almost every conservative value. There is nothing it will not dump to save its own skin. There is nothing it will not dump to satisfy an unhappy backbencher or an unhappy constituent.
We have Tony Abbott, the man of 'surplus, surplus, surplus' before the election, now openly saying that a debt to GDP ratio of 50 to 60 per cent is 'a pretty good result'. It seems the only value they will not dump is the selling of assets. We have a Treasurer trying to encourage his state colleagues—first Campbell Newman and now Mike Baird—to sell assets that belong to the people of their respective states and that actually generate a return, a dividend, to the people of those states. This is extraordinary. We have Mike Baird dancing to Tony Abbott's tune and planning to sell the extraordinary assets which belong the people of New South Wales. It seems there is no value they will not dump—except this one: sell the assets, sell off the farm, sell off what we own.
This Saturday is an exciting day for the people of Barton, because they can choose a government that listens and responds to their needs or choose the party that has done nothing in 16 years. The Baird Liberal government has delivered the funding to St George Hospital that the previous Labor Party could not. It was not the lack of funding; they just did not care. For 16 years, St George Hospital, a major infrastructure facility and employer in the Barton electorate, was left to languish. The member for Kogarah, Cherie Burton, had her chance to represent her constituents and for 16 years she did nothing.
My constituents are disappointed that their area was neglected until the Baird Liberal government came along. Within their first term, $8 million was delivered for a new mental health unit, $39 million was delivered for a new emergency department and $307 million was delivered for a St George hospital rebuild. The key word here is 'delivered'—not talked about, not promised but delivered.
An increasing population in the St George area also requires better infrastructure to support commuters. Pinch-points in the area have been overlooked time and again by New South Wales Labor. Under the Liberals, $13 million has been confirmed to upgrade the overpass at Allawah station, which is due to start this year. A further $240 million has been confirmed to fix intersections in Kogarah, Beverly Hills and Hurstville. This is a real win for residents. The people of St George deserve a voice in parliament that represents their needs, someone with a connection to the area they represent and not someone who choses to live in Kurnell or Nowra. A vote for the Baird Liberal team will ensure this excellent track record continues.
I would like to inform the House of what the Baird and Abbott governments have done to our community. The Killara women's refuge in Randwick is the only women's only domestic violence shelter in our community. As a result of the Baird government's Going Home Staying Home reforms, the Killara women's shelter is about to close. Some women fleeing domestic violence in my community will have nowhere to go and will be forced to live in halfway houses. Often they leave home with their children, fleeing domestic violence situations, with nothing else but the clothes on their backs. That opportunity for a women's only shelter is now closed in our community.
At the Prince of Wales hospital in Randwick, our local hospital, the Baird government have cut $30 million from their operating budget over the last three years—30 beds have closed, two physiotherapists have been sacked. My wife is a nurse and she tells me of the pressures that nurses are under at the local hospital because when nurses leave they are not being replaced.
Our local TAFE college in Randwick has lost 40 teachers over the last four years. There has been $1.7 billion cut from the TAFE budget in New South Wales and 1,100 teachers have been sacked. I have an email from a constituent who says that the cost of a certificate III in jewellery has gone from $419 in 2014 to $10,651 now. That is what a Liberal government does to education in our community. (Time expired)
This Saturday, the people of New South Wales have a clear choice: strength and unity from the Liberal National coalition or Labor on L-plates. Strong teamwork is exactly what we are delivering in my part of New South Wales, with state members Pru Goward in Goulburn, John Barilaro in Monaro, Jai Rowell in Wollondilly and Katrina Hodgkinson in Cootamundra. And the benefits are flowing fast.
In Goulburn alone, $120 million from the Baird government will be spent on redeveloping Goulburn hospital. There is federal funding for a new headspace centre, $12 million in joint state and federal funding for much-needed bridge rebuilding and the NBN will rollout to 9½ thousand premises. At Yass, up to $15 million in shared state and federal funding has been announced for the Barton Highway—funding to kick-start the plan for a staged duplication. Close campaigning by all three levels of government in Yass—federal, state and local—has put the Barton back in the spotlight. Labor will do nothing on this issue and has been totally silent.
The love will keep coming for communities in my electorate, because the teamwork between state and federal MPs is concrete, as concrete as the bridges we are building near Young and Goulburn. These are the projects that matter. To voters in Monaro, Goulburn, Wollondilly and Coota, the choice is clear this Saturday: vote 1 for the strong teamwork of the Liberal National coalition.
It is actually rare when you have an election at a state level that you can send a message to two governments—a hard-hearted coalition government in Canberra and an incompetent one in Macquarie Street in New South Wales. At the federal level, you see the federal budget has cut $80 billion in spending on schools and hospitals, and infrastructure spending is below what it should be. How does that translate at the state level? We have seen a cardiac ward closed at Mt Druitt hospital. We have seen a failure to provide and support health infrastructure in our area. We have seen schools lose their funding. And on infrastructure, there is one particular body in our area that will suffer as a result of political football playing between Tony Abbott and Mike Baird. The Mt Druitt Learning Ground, based at Bidwell, has been there for 10 years helping students who have been kicked out of school, making sure that they are picked up and kept on the path to training and fulfilling their future aspirations. That facility will be shut because Tony Abbott's government will not fund it and Mike Baird's government is trying to work out how he can avoid funding it. We have young people in our area denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential and denied the ability to follow-up on that potential. This is what happens when you have two levels of government team up and hurt our part of Western Sydney. It is completely unacceptable. So this weekend, send a message to both Tony Abbott and Mike Baird and vote to support your local area.
We expect election campaigns in this country to be fought hard. But the campaign we are seeing from the New South Wales Labor Party has taken us to new lows. Before our eyes, we are witnessing the most dishonest, the most deceitful and the most hypocritical campaign in our nation's history. But do not take my word for it; take the word of former Labor minister Martin Ferguson, who said: 'It's just deliberately misleading the public, creating unnecessary fear and trying to scare people into voting for Labor not on merit but on misinformation. In many ways, I am ashamed of the Labor Party.'
Or take the word of former New South Wales Labor Treasurer Michael Costa, who said, 'Lie after desperate lie is being thrown at the public in an attempt to frighten the electorate into rejecting the Baird government's sensible and moderate reforms.' But now even the Race Discrimination Commissioner, a former Labor staffer, has launched a scathing attack. He said: 'We should not be inflaming xenophobia. In this case, it is disappointing that political advertisements of the Labor Party have resorted to such fearmongering.'
New South Wales Labor remains totally unfit to hold office. The challenge is now on for all those members to either stand up and condemn this or to be part of it and complicit.
On Saturday, the people of New South Wales have a chance to stand up to the gutless Baird regime. Mike Baird has been gutless in standing up to his surfing buddy, Tony Abbott, and his gutting of New South Wales, which has stripped $220 million already from the Hunter and Central Coast hospitals—gone from 1 July last year. He has been gutless in standing up for the 27,000 pensioners in my area, who have already seen their pension and concessions cut under the Abbott-Baird party.
The impact of electricity privatisation will be devastating in my region. We will see it, and we have seen it already in Victoria under the Kennett regime, and we will see it under Mike Baird if he is returned to office. There are 1,000 Ausgrid workers who work at Wallsend, in my electorate, and at least 400 of their jobs will be under threat because they are in the backroom. These are 400 families who will suffer because of the privatisation from those opposite. God knows what will happen to the maintenance regime, which is so important to our electricity network. All of that is under threat because of their privatisation.
I say to those 1,000 workers at Wallsend: if you care about your jobs, if you care about a great electricity network, stand up and vote out Mike Baird. The beauty of Saturday is that, if you vote out Baird, you get to vote out Abbott, because, as sure as day follows night, if Mike Baird goes on Saturday Tony Abbott goes the week after, and we can enjoy what happens after that. So stand up for your region.
This Saturday, the Central Coast voters have a clear choice between a Baird coalition government, which will keep New South Wales working, and the increasingly desperate New South Wales Labor Party. Unsurprisingly, we have seen Labor conduct the most dishonest election campaign in New South Wales history, with a scaremongering Labor Party willing to say and do anything to deceive their way back into government.
These are the facts: the Baird government is seeking to lease—lease, not sell—49 per cent of the state's electricity distribution network, and the government will retain full ownership. By doing so, the government will be able to invest $20 billion to build new assets, which will be owned by the people of New South Wales.
Sadly, the Labor Party have no ideas of their own. Their modest plan for New South Wales will leave residents of the Central Coast worse off. Our local candidates—Sandra Kerr, in Wyong; Michael Sharpe, in The Entrance; and Adam Crouch, in Terrigal—have stood up to Labor's dishonesty, bullying and dirty tactics, and have presented a positive plan for the Central Coast.
Ms Hall interjecting—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The bullies are in the room now—the members for Shortland and Charlton. You don't get worse than that pair.
In 2011, the coalition said— (Time expired)
In two days time, the people of New South Wales head to the polls to elect a new government. They will be faced with a choice: to back the Prime Minister's best mate, Mike Baird, or to vote for a Foley-led government under Labor, the party with a robust, progressive plan for the state, which does not involve selling off the electricity network to make it happen.
The bromance shared between the Prime Minister and the Premier is obviously on the rocks. They have hardly been seen together in public, and when they are only one of them is allowed to talk. It is time for the voters in my electorate of Newcastle and across the state of New South Wales to end the disruptive and destructive relationship on their behalf, and kick Mike Baird and the Liberals out of office.
The Liberals have caused untold damage in my electorate with their shocking acts of betrayal and dishonesty that were uncovered by the Independent Commission Against Corruption last year. From taking envelopes full of cash in the back seat of a former lord mayor's Bentley to producing sham invoices to cover up developer donations, the acts of Liberal members in Newcastle have tarnished our city's reputation and have totally betrayed the trust of our community. Thankfully, most of them are now gone, with Labor winning back the seats of Newcastle and Charlestown at the recent by-elections, forced by the resignations of disgraced Liberal members.
I look forward to the election of Labor members across Newcastle—good, decent local members who will stand up for the interests of their community rather than their own self-interest.
As you well know, Deputy Speaker, we on this side of parliament are always builders. We build things. They break things and we build them.
I only have 90 seconds left; I had better get going. I want to go through three state electorates, and they have a stark choice this Saturday. In the electorate of Clarence we have Chris Gulaptis, a great MP. He has promised, and they have already started to build, a $150 million new bridge in Grafton. Bob Carr promised it 20 years ago, but guess what? It did not happen. But it will happen under the Baird government. There is $7 million for the upgrade of the Grafton hospital and $4 million for a new HealthOne precinct at Coraki to replace the hospital that was shut by the previous government.
I will move onto Lismore—I could go on with Clarence, but I have to keep moving. Thomas George has promised $180 million—I will say it again: $180 million—for the stage 3b upgrade of the Lismore Base Hospital—a new car park there. There is millions of dollars for a new health facility at Bonalbo.
I have to keep moving; I have to go to Ballina. Kris Beavis, the candidate there, who was the CEO of the local Westpac rescue helicopter and is also the chairman of his surf lifesaving club, announced $50 million on a new school and $50 million on a new rail trail, which will bring a whole new tourism industry to our region. So there is one choice for the North Coast: vote for the Nationals.
When the people of New South Wales go to the polls this Saturday, there will be an opportunity for them to cast a verdict not only on the performance of Mike Baird and his plans to sell off the poles and wires in this state but also on this Prime Minister, because it is Mike Baird in New South Wales who is collaborating with this Prime Minister to cut the funding from our schools. It is Mike Baird in New South Wales who is collaborating with this Prime Minister to cut the funding to our hospitals—over $55 billion worth of funding cuts throughout the country. And not a peep from Mike Baird as he pulls his surfboard out and goes surfing at Manly on a Saturday with this Prime Minister. He is collaborating with the Prime Minister to cut funding to our schools and to cut funding to our hospitals. He is collaborating with this government over here to privatise our poles and wires, against the very wishes of the people of New South Wales.
Anybody who has knocked on a door in New South Wales over the last month will tell you that they want to keep the poles and wires in public hands. They do not agree to the bribery of this Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales, and this Saturday will be an opportunity for them to cast a verdict on both of them.
This Saturday is a vital day in the history of New South Wales. Labor has conducted—
The SPEAKER: It being two o'clock, I declare, in accordance with standing order 43, that the time for members' statements has concluded.
As members are aware, after today the House next meets on 12 May. During the recess, Australians will gather for Anzac Day as we do every year. But this Anzac Day will mark 100 years since the Gallipoli campaign. It will be a poignant milestone in our country's history because the Great War was the crucible in which our national identity was forged. From a population of just 5 million some 400,000 enlisted, 330,000 served overseas, more than 150,000 were wounded and 61,000 never came back. Tens of thousands carry the unseen wounds with them for the rest their lives. Of men aged between 18 and 42, almost 50 per cent enlisted. It was the dominant event in the lives of all who lived through those times.
This Anzac Day, I have invited the Leader of the Opposition to join me at the commemoration at Gallipoli. At home, I know that all members will be participating in local commemorations right around the country. When parliament resumes, a motion will be put before the House recognising this historic occasion. There will be subsequent debate here so that members can report for the record on the activities that took place in their own electorates. The Hansard of the debate will then be given to the Australian War Memorial so that Australians will always know how we commemorated the Centenary.
I do look forward to reporting back to the House on our commemorations when the House resumes in May.
On indulgence, I, on behalf of the opposition, would like to unreservedly as associate the opposition with the Prime Minister's remarks about the approaching Centenary of Anzac. Like the Prime Minister, I will have the remarkable privilege of attending Gallipoli on 25 April. I acknowledge the work that has gone into these very important commemorations and I know that right across Australia on that day as a nation we will pause and reflect upon what is arguably one of the most defining points in our nation's history. We will remember the lives lost and the changes to families forever made.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, it has happened again. Last week in the Prime Minister's courtyard, somebody said:
A ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60 per cent is a pretty good result.
Given that this happened in the Prime Minister's very own courtyard, does the Prime Minister have any idea who said this?
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left. The Prime Minister has the call.
Given the Leader of the Opposition's enthusiasm to be the steward of his own Prime Minister's courtyard, you would think he would respect better what was actually said in that courtyard. So for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, let me read exactly what was said in the prime ministerial courtyard that the Leader of the Opposition claims so much to occupy. What was exactly said was this:
Debt as a percentage of GDP, which would have been 120 per cent under the policies of the former government—
Let me repeat that: debt as a percentage of GDP, which would have been 120 per cent under the policies of the former government.
is about 60 per cent under the policies of this government. Now that is too high.
I will repeat: now that is too high.
We want to get it in a much much better situation than that.
That was what was said in the Prime Minister's courtyard. We will deliver on that in this budget.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Prime Minister has concluded his question.
Mr Burke interjecting—
Is it a public document? If it is a public document, it is not eligible.
Madam Speaker, it was on television.
The member will resume his seat.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on further action the government is taking to keep Australians safe and secure.
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. As all members of this parliament know, the Daesh death cult has been reaching out to this country to do its worst to brainwash impressionable young people here in Australia. Already, we have had two Islamist terrorist incidents here in this country. The first was the attack on two policemen in Victoria and then there was the Martin Place siege just before Christmas.
Most regrettably, about 100 Australians are currently fighting with the death cult in the Middle East. About 150 Australians here at home are supporting them with recruitment and financing. More than 100 have had their passports cancelled to stop them from travelling to the Middle East to join the death cult.
In response to this threat, the government has been strengthening our security agencies. One of the most significant measures has been the establishment of counter-terrorism units at our eight international airports. I can report to the House that in their first six months of operation some 86,000 assessments have been done and some 230 people have been offloaded from planes that were bound for the Middle East. I have a very simple message for people who might be tempted to travel to the Middle East to join terrorist organisations: don't do it; it is dangerous to you, it is dangerous to others, and we will stop you for our good and for yours.
We have also been strengthening our laws. It was the stronger laws that this parliament put in place that had a big impact in preventing an imminent terrorist attack in Sydney last month. The latest legislative measure, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015, should be passed by the parliament today. This is a very important piece of legislation because 90 per cent of counter-terrorist investigations, 90 per cent of child abuse investigations and 80 per cent of organised crime investigations rely on the use of metadata information that the system collects about communications. This data must be kept and our agencies must have access to it. The bill acknowledges the right to privacy. It acknowledges the principle of freedom of the press, which is fundamental to our democracy. It is essential legislation. This bill will give our crime fighters the information they need to keep us all safe.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the non-answer he gave to my previous question is the Prime Minister seriously denying to Australia that he said 'a ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60 per cent is a pretty good result'? Why can't this Prime Minister ever just tell the truth?
The Prime Minister will ignore the last part of the question.
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence. Otherwise, someone will leave under 94(a).
I said it is a lot better than 120 per cent, which is where the former government was taking us. The former government was taking us to a debt to GDP ratio of 120 per cent; it was taking us to budget deficits of 12 per cent of GDP every year. That is Treasury analysis of the policies of the former government. Obviously, this government was elected to fix the budget. We were elected to bring the budget back under control.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Sydney will desist.
As the Intergenerational report made absolutely crystal clear, if members opposite had had the responsibility to engage with this government on last year's budget measures we would have fixed the budget position for a generation.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Chifley is warned.
While members opposite have not had the decency and the courage to engage with this government—
The member for Corio is warned.
to address the budget mess that they created, while members opposite are continuing to sabotage a solution to the problems they created, we have made a strong start. Labor's debt and deficit disaster has been halved already and this year's budget will build on that strong foundation. This year's budget will be measured, it will be responsible and, above all else, it will be fair.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Lilley made very unparliamentary comments throughout the Prime Minister's answer. I ask that he withdraw them.
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence. Did the member for Lilley make unparliamentary remarks? If he did, would he withdraw them to assist the House. He says he did not. The member for Solomon will resume her seat. This is not going to be a point of debate.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The Treasurer! There will be silence. I call the member for Berowra.
I have a question for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, will you further update the House on action the government is taking to prevent young Australians from leaving to fight in the Syria-Iraqi conflict?
I thank the member for Berowra for his question. Countering the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters is a key priority for this government. Our own experience with Afghanistan has taught us that, once people go to train or fight with terrorist groups, they are likely to come back and seek to commit terrorist attacks at home. We know of around 100 Australians fighting in Syria and Iraq with terrorist groups such as Daesh. Well over 20 Australians have been killed and it is inevitable that more will die violent, senseless deaths. Barbaric extremists such as Daesh have become adept at seeking out the weak and vulnerable. Daesh exploits the internet and social media to pull young people into its poisonous web. Members are already aware of the tragic cases of Australian teenage suicide bombers Adam Dahman and Jake Bilardi. Sadly, there are many more just like them—vulnerable minors whom Daesh is singling out and grooming to spread its depraved ideology.
Powers granted to me under our new foreign fighters legislation make it easier and quicker to stop our young people leaving the country. I now have the power to suspend Australian passports and temporarily seize the foreign passports of dual nationals, which enables us to respond to urgent circumstances. Well over 100 passports of would-be fighters have now been cancelled and I have suspended around 10 of these passports.
All too often I am approving passport cancellations or suspensions for a string of 16- or 17-year-olds who are seeking to travel, always with ludicrously large amounts of cash, bogus stories of holidays and frequently without their family's knowledge. In recent days, I have implemented emergency suspensions as the young person concerned is actually at the airport about to depart. I want to thank our border control agencies for the outstanding job that they are doing in cooperation with our security agencies, our intelligence agencies and our law enforcement agencies.
We could not do this without the help of the community, and I thank the friends, brothers, sisters and parents who are taking action, calling the national hotline, going to police and seeking the help of community leaders before it is too late. We have had over 20,000 calls to the national hotline in the last six months alone. That number is 1800123400. We are getting invaluable information which helps us respond quickly and effectively. It prevents children going to their deaths and it keeps our people safe at home. This government is committed to preventing vulnerable young people being lured into the conflict and keeping our country safe.
I wish to advise the House that we have a number of very distinguished people in the gallery today. We have the Samoan Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Labour, the Hon. Fonotoe Nuafesili Pierre Lauofo. We also have, with him, Mr Brian Kaio, the Acting High Commissioner for Samoa. We also have with us Mr Peter Greste, with his family, Juris, Lois, Andrew, Kylie, Mike and Nikki. We also have with us the Ambassador Designate for the Republic of Guinea, Mr Senkoun Sylla. We also have with us the honourable Mr Abraham Sumanthiram, a member of the Sri Lankan parliament. We have indeed a very distinguished gathering with us today and we make you all very welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
If I may, on indulgence, I would just like to add to your words, Madam Speaker. To Peter Greste, welcome home.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week the Treasurer said in relation to his secret GST report:
There will be nothing of any concern to the New South Wales government associated with this review.
So how does the Prime Minister respond to today's Australian Financial Review, which reports that this chaotic and incompetent government will rip over $200 million in GST from New South Wales? Don't the voters of New South Wales deserve the truth on Saturday from this government?
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is warned!
The truth is that the only way the GST can change is if Bill Shorten wants to change it. The only way that the GST can change is if members opposite decide that they want to change it, because—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga is warned!
There is no way, under legislation, that the GST can change without the support of all the state and territory governments, and there is no way that any rational government—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is warned! One more utterance and he will be the first to leave.
would want to change the GST without a consensus in the parliament, and that means the support of the Australian Labor Party. But, Madam Speaker, you just do not know with members opposite, do you? You never know with members opposite. The only idea that the Leader of the Opposition has ever come up with—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is also warned!
when it comes to a budget was to steal inactive bank accounts. That is the only budget idea he has ever actually come up with—to take pensioners' and schoolkids' bank accounts, to raid the cookie jar, to grab the piggy bank—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition will desist.
Old Light Fingers Bill over there! Old Sticky Fingers Leader of the Opposition over there!
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question goes to the release of a report, and the Prime Minister should be directly relevant to it.
There is no point of order.
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence on both sides.
I was asked about tax and I am responding.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition will desist.
The Leader of the Opposition's was not just a tax; it was a confiscation, an absolute confiscation! The Dollarmite accounts were gone. He was picking the pockets of pensioners. That is what he was doing.
But just on the subject of GST—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney has been warned. If she interjects one more time, she will leave under 94(a). The choice is hers.
there is one party which actually modelled an increase in the GST. There is one party and only one party which modelled an increase in the GST—members opposite, just before the last election. Was it the world's greatest treasurer or was it the world's worst immigration minister? Which one was it that modelled a 12½ per cent rate of the GST?
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will leave under 94(a).
The member for Sydney then left the chamber.
There is only one conclusion that the people of Australia can draw: you just cannot trust Labor.
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training. Minister, universities existed before your reform proposal and must exist afterwards, regardless of your success or failure. Hence, you really should stop linking to the reforms the critical $400 million restructure funding for the University of Tasmania. So, Minister, will you now act in the public interest and commit to that funding, or do you intend to promise it closer to the next election, in a cynical move to try and save the three Tasmanian Liberal Party amigos?
I thank the member for Denison for his question. Quite frankly, I am rather surprised by it, because the very reforms that the member for Denison talks about are the ones that would have allowed the University of Tasmania to go ahead with its restructure of its university.
The University of Tasmania had plans, and hopefully will have plans in the future, to expand their operations. To be able to do so, they needed to lift the cap on the sub-bachelor courses—the very ones the member for Denison voted against in this House and helped convince Senator Lambie to vote against in the Senate. For the University of Tasmania to successfully restructure and fill those campuses they wanted to build, they needed to lift the cap on the pre-degree places that were going to be the reason for those campuses to exist. So I cannot understand the member for Denison's question.
The only link between the restructure and the government's reforms is that the reforms allow the University of Tasmania to secure its financial future by expanding by thousands and thousands of places—I think there were some suggestions that they would raise their pre-degree places by 10,000—to bring that revenue into Tasmania. That is why the member for Lyons, the member for Bass and the member for Braddon all lobbied so hard for these reforms—because they were the lifesaving measure that the University of Tasmania wanted. In fact, regional universities would have been the big winners from the government's higher education reforms, if they had passed the Senate. Scott Bowman, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Central Queensland, put it best when he said:
If regional Australia had any hope of ever catching up with city Australia in university participation … it would be through an uncapped student system in a deregulated market.
His university is exactly the same as the University of Tasmania in that it needs to be able to have an uncapped, deregulated market for the pre-degree places if it is to gain the extra revenue that it needs to invest in excellent teaching and research.
I would urge the member for Denison to change his position on the government's reforms and help convince Senator Lambie to change her position on the reforms, because their votes were against the very thing that they both say they wanted to expand. On that note, I thank the member for Denison for his question. I would ask him to reconsider the position he adopted on the government's higher education reforms.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to protect the community from threats at our borders?
I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. It is a very important question, because, as all Australians know, we must protect our borders. If we do not have integrity at the Australian borders, then we cannot provide assurances to the Australian people about their security. During Labor's seven years in government, they completely and utterly lost control of our borders. Fifty thousand people and 800 boats came during Labor's period in government. And not only that but Labor ripped out over $700 million—
Mr Champion interjecting—
from the Australian Customs Service—
The member for Wakefield has been warned.
and our Border Protection services. This government has restored that funding. We have put significant amounts of funding back into the Australian Customs Service, back into Border Force, and we will keep our borders strong. This is for a couple of reasons—not just because we want to stop the boats, not just because we want to stop people drowning at sea and not just because we do not want our detention centres filled with children, as they were under Labor, but also because we want to stare down the scourge of terrorism and we want to stare down—
Mr Giles interjecting—
The member for Scullin is not in his seat.
those people who would seek to import methamphetamine, ice and drugs into our country. Yesterday the Prime Minister—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo is not in her seat.
the Minister for Justice and I went to visit some of our front-line officers to talk about the work that they are doing every day. They have increased the number of checks at our borders. They had a 75 per cent cut to cargo screening and a 25 per cent cut to sea-cargo screening under Labor; but, as we discussed yesterday, we have restored the screening at our borders. What does that mean for mums and dads across the country with teenage kids? It means that we are blocking drugs, as best we can, from coming into this country.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bendigo then left the chamber.
That is what it means for parents who are worried about their kids going out on a Friday night or going out on the weekend and being faced with people peddling drugs. We are doing everything we can as a government to restore integrity to our borders; and the Labor Party, if they were re-elected at the next election, would seek again to rip money out of our Border Protection forces.
I spoke about the counter-terrorism units the day before yesterday. The Prime Minister made reference to them in his answer today, as did the foreign affairs minister. With $50 million of funding from this government, we have been able to set up counter-terrorism unit forces within Border Protection at the eight international airports. That is the reason we have been able to identify these young people who would seek to go to the Middle East and who would seek to fight in those conflicts in Syria and Iraq. We are stopping those kids because we have restored the funding. Labor would rip the funding out.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that robocalls featuring the dulcet tones of the Minister for Communications have been heard by voters picking up their phones in New South Wales. Prime Minister, why do New South Wales Liberals prefer a recorded Malcolm Turnbull to a real Prime Minister?
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That question is quite out of order. It was quite out of order, and he knows it. Resume your seat. The member for Macquarie has the call.
My question is to the Minister for Justice. Will the minister inform the House of the importance of metadata in the fight against ice?
I thank the member for Macquarie for that question. Yesterday I released the first national picture, which we have had prepared by the Australian Crime Commission, of the illicit ice market in Australia and the growing impact that it is having on our communities. The ACC report highlighted to us several things that we have known anecdotally but have now been reflected in their intelligence, including that organised crime is playing a central role in the distribution of ice. As 60 per cent of the most serious criminal targets in the country are involved in the peddling of this drug, the higher price that ice gets in Australia is drawing in criminals from all around the world.
What the report also highlighted was the success that our law-enforcement agencies are having in battling this drug. Recently we had our agencies carry out operations that have resulted in an unprecedented seizure of ice and other drugs. An example I want to share with the House is the seizure of 25 kilograms of ice, a couple of weeks, ago in Sydney's central business district. This drug was seized—along with a smorgasbord of other drugs—along with guns and over $4 million in cash. The drugs themselves had a street value of $27 million. This case is currently before the courts, but I can inform the House that metadata was essential in detecting and disrupting this hall of drugs.
Our police can only operate effectively if we give them the tools to do so. Over the past two years the AFP alone has seized seven tonnes of methamphetamine, which has an estimated street value of over $4 billion. Our agencies had been warning us for years, though, that the investigative tools that they need to do this job, to disrupt the illicit drug trade, are consistently being eroded. This is happening because serious providers no longer automatically keep the metadata, that they routinely collect, for long periods of time. With data retention in place we will provide the certainty for our police agencies to be able to do their jobs. It will give them the intelligence they need to make the major drug busts they have been continuing to do and to keep the scourge of drugs, such as ice, off our streets.
As the Prime Minister has already outlined in question time today, metadata is an essential tool in 90 per cent of counter-terrorism investigations, in 100 per cent of cybercrime investigations and in 80 per cent of other serious criminal investigations, including drug investigations. Today the Senate has the ability to make sure that the police continue to have the tools they need to protect us from the worst elements of society. I would urge the Senate to support these measures, which will give our law-enforcement agencies the best chance they need to fight the criminal gangs that peddle in this misery.
Given that the Prime Minister did not have the chance to answer the last question I seek leave to move the following motion:
(1) leading a chaotic and incompetent government;
(2) ruling out more cuts to foreign aid but not to schools, hospitals or pensioners;
(3) preparing a budget filled with more lies, more cuts and more chaos;
(4) having no plan for Australia's future; and
(5) using the budget in a desperate attempt to save his own job.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House condemns the Prime Minister for:
(1) leading a chaotic and incompetent government
(2) for ruling out more cuts to foreign aid but not to schools, hospitals or pensioners
(3) preparing a budget filled with more cuts and more chaos
(4) having no plan for Australia's future and
(5) using the budget in a desperate attempt to save his own job.
If the New South Wales Liberal machine do not want Tony Abbott, why should Australia have him?
I call the Leader of the House. The member will resume his seat.
I move that the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
Incapable of telling the truth!
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
I move:
That the question now be put.
Question put.
The question now is that the original suspension motion be agreed to.
Madam Speaker, as the opposition have plainly run out of questions, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Today is quite a sad day for the chamber because it is the last day for Joanne Towner, Clerk Assistant (Table). She will be retiring before the House resumes for the budget sittings. I would just like to give you the background of Joanne before we wish her every happiness in her retirement and say how much we will miss her.
Joanne commenced with the Department of the House of Representatives in July 1987, transferring from the Department of Defence to work with the secretariat of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. After later promotion, Joanne performed very capably as the secretary of the joint committees, as well as other committees, and as Director, Chamber Research Office. She has worked as Clerk Assistant since 2009, undertaking the roles of Clerk Assistant (Committees) and, most recently, Clerk Assistant (Table). Joanne has had a very successful career with the parliament and embodies the very best characteristics of the clerks who serve this House. She enjoys the total confidence of members and of me.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
She is highly regarded by the staff of the department. It is fair to say that we are all very sorry that she has chosen to commence her retirement. Nevertheless, we wish her and her husband, Ed, all the very best with her retirement, and indeed with her son, as well.
Catherine Cornish, a longstanding officer of the House, has been selected to replace Joanne. I wish Catherine all the very best in her new role, as I am sure each and every member of the House does.
Joanne, we wish you every happiness in the future.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Couldn't we pass a law to stop her from going?
Well, it is a good idea!
We now turn to a more serious matter—not that that was not serious, but that was serious and there is happiness for Joanne. This is a different sort of serious matter.
Yesterday the Manager of Opposition Business raised as a matter of privilege statements reported to have been made by the member for Bowman after he had apologised to the House for his actions in the Federation Chamber on 24 March and had been named and suspended from the House. I have seen the statement issued by the member for Bowman, to the effect that, 'If Australian families have to breathe it, I don't back down from bringing it to the parliament to make a point.'
Any act which obstructs or impedes the House in the performance of its functions may be treated as a contempt, as long as it meets the test of being an improper interference with the work of the House. In this case, the actions of the member for Bowman were, quite properly, dealt with by way of the House as a matter of order. I accept the member for Bowman's apology to the House for his actions and expect him to honour that apology. Any attempt by the member to pursue the matter in a similar way in the future would also be dealt with as a matter of order.
Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for Chisholm, Newcastle, Charlton and Hotham to be members of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. I welcome the return of the participation of opposition members to the Speaker's panel.
I have a series of matters, and before I deal with those I might add the government's words to your comments about Joanne Towner. We would like to associate ourselves with the words that you stated about Joanne. She will be sorely missed and seems far too young to be retiring. But I am sure she will have a very full and exciting life ahead of her, away from this place. One wonders how she will be able to tear herself away from it, but nevertheless we do associate ourselves with your remarks and wish Joanne the very best in the years ahead.
A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I move:
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting of the House until 10 August 2015 be given to the honourable member for Higgins for parental leave purposes.
Question agreed to.
Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to briefly associate the opposition with the comments you made and your wishes for Joanne Towner. We wish her well in being able to spend more time with Ed. We congratulate Catherine Cornish on the promotion as well and note that, of all the different offices throughout the Public Service, arguably the one that has always had to have the absolute trust of different sides of politics is the role of the clerks. That role continues to be performed with complete integrity and the support of the opposition.
I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's Budget chaos.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The last budget was a disaster and the next budget will be more lies and more cuts and more chaos. But the problem is this government's approach to the next budget is presenting some very poor signals for Australia's future. We see cabinet leaking and fighting in the newspapers. What amazes Labor is that, even though their political allies, the New South Wales Liberal Party, are fighting an election on Saturday, this mob opposite cannot contain their chaos even for a few days to help them.
What makes it amazing is that we know that Tony Abbott and Mike Baird are great mates—and, to be fair, Tony Abbott got at least invited to this Liberal launch. But of course what we saw, most remarkably, is that they will let Tony Abbott out but they will not let him speak. All I say is that, if you do not let him speak at the New South Wales Liberal convention, why on earth do you inflict him on the rest of Australia?
But this has been a most chaotic week for the government. Not the least of the chaos is the discovery that in New South Wales, if you answer the telephone, you may or may not get some sort of crank call, or it may indeed be a Malcolm Turnbull robocall, automated pleading for a vote. But what is interesting is that the New South Wales Labor Party think an automated Malcolm Turnbull is better than a real Tony Abbott. I am not so sure they are right, but it is an interesting theory to debate.
Of course, this morning on radio we learnt that Mike Baird was asked why the member for Wentworth was being used for robocalls, not Tony Abbott—good question. Mike Baird said: 'Malcolm is very well known.' This is of course the problem, because Tony Abbott is very, very, very well known. The people of New South Wales know all about Tony Abbott. So do the people of Australia.
But the chaos and confusion is not just confined to the New South Wales election and they tactics they are trying to use to put Tony Abbott into witness protection. What we saw is Joe Hockey again repeating earlier styles. They love to hide the bad news before state elections and get it out after voters in a particular jurisdiction have voted. Treasurer Hockey says there is no need for us to reveal the report to Australians, no need to reveal it to the New South Wales government yet, because there is nothing to see: 'Nothing to see! Please keep moving along. Don't look at the scene of the crime.'
Then we discovered today that Joe Hockey produced another thought bubble. That man has a thought bubble factory. He has shares in thought bubble businesses. He said New South Wales would be $206 million worse off. But before the last election, before even the last chaotic budget, Tony Abbott was in Tasmania saying, 'I'll look after GST here.' And then he flew across to Western Australia and said, I'll look after GST here.' These people are all things to all people. The problem is that the music stops and the truth catches up with them; this next budget will be most chaotic.
Of course, there are different ways of dealing with the budget. Julie 'sounds like a good idea' Bishop, in a Chavez style, said, 'Let's cap iron ore production.' Why didn't we all think about a cartel? Oh that's right, we are not the Foreign Minister of Australia! You can just imagine the klaxon and red light in the Prime Minister's office—look out, another minister on the loose! The only question they ask in the Prime Minister's officer is, 'Was it a deliberate attack, an undermining of the government, or was it just another mistake from Julie Bishop?' And, of course, we saw the eye roll from the Foreign Minister about foreign aid cuts.
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Oh my Lord, Mr McCormack! This whole government is funny; it would be, except you are running Australia! The Treasurer has ruled out cuts to foreign aid in this budget. We acknowledge that they have already knocked off $11 billion. That was a good day's work for these conservative right-wing ideologues—cutting $11 billion of aid to the poorest in the world! We had an eye roll from the Foreign Minister and the Treasurer ruled out cuts. What I do not understand is why they will not rule out cuts to schools, hospitals and pensioners. Why is it that this government can rule out some things and cannot rule out others.
Mrs Sudmalis interjecting—
I am sure the member for Gilmore, in her private moments, is thinking, 'Good point, Leader of the Opposition.' Then, of course, we come back to the chief problem of this budget—or one of the two: who is Batman and who is Robin in this budget? I do not know. Is it Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey or is it Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott? They both have a problem in that they both own this next budget. We saw the Prime Minister engage in what he is famous for—economics. Actually, he is not that famous for economics! He said that the debt to GDP ratio of about 50 to 60 per cent—
Don't misquote it!
Don't worry, I won't misquote it. We can't even get the Prime Minister to quote it again! Believe me, nothing I produce is as good as what this bloke does to himself. He said the debt to GDP ratio of about 50 to 60 per cent is 'a pretty good result'. A pretty good result! My Lord! It does make you channel that question asked on radio: 'For a Rhodes Scholar, how come you say such stupid things, Prime Minister?' The problem is that this budget is in chaos and this government is in disarray. Last year's budget was written by the big end of town. It was written by Tony Shepherd and Maurice Newman, from the Business Council of Australia. It was a debased, politicised, ideological process. We saw good public servants sidelined. It was straight from the pen of Tony Shepherd and Maurice Newman. The Treasurer made a dreadful mistake in handing over to the big end of town alone the pen that wrote the budget. Business has a role in forming the budget—of course it does—but a budget should be of the people, by the people and for the people. Last year's budget certainly was not. This government is out of touch. We know that they have no idea how people live their lives in the real world. There are no signs or any hopes that this budget will be any better.
This is a big statement but I think the evidence supports it: the two single worst performers in this government—and there is stiff competition—are the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. If Tony Abbott were smart, he would give the Treasurer's job to someone else. Here is some free bipartisan advice from the opposition to the government on behalf of the people of Australia: you need a new Treasurer, and fast. The problem is that the Prime Minister cannot give away the Treasurer's job because the Treasurer is glued to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister is glued to the Treasurer. They are the modern Thelma and Louise of politics, their fates inexorably tied. The budget they politicised was written by the top end of town with manifest unfairness—a GP tax; pension increases; cuts to the rate of pension increases; higher education changes; and the dreadful treatment of the unemployed, with six months of nothing at all. The problem is that the government could not sell its budget because it is manifestly unfair.
This is a government with no vision of the future. Their vision of the future is starkly ideological. They can never dig themselves out of the last budget hole because they are not capable of doing it. These people have never in their lives tried to fight an argument about the future of Australia These two, Hockey and Abbott, could not go two rounds with a revolving door; they cannot fight anyone. They have no plan in the next budget to make Australia a better destination, a better place for change. They have no view about foreign policy—the change from the West to the East—and our part in Asia. All they have is tired old ideology from the conservative rule book of 1950, 1960, 1970 and 1980. They say, 'Let's get rid of bulk billing and then we can undermine universal Medicare.' They say, 'Let's bag working conditions in the safety net for working Australians.' They say, 'Let's freeze superannuation.' This mob opposite have never supported an increase to workers superannuation in their lives.
The only thing I expect to see in the next budget is that they will try and save their own skins. The Prime Minister says that this budget is dull. How does he think that reassures Australians? What that tells Australians is that he and Joe Hockey have given up; they have decided that they want it to be dull because that is the only way they think they can hang onto their jobs. The economic policy of this nation is run by two people's desire for their own job security—Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey. The government has not yet done what it should do—dump the $100,000 degrees. Their education minister—and that is a misnomer—is running around saying, 'I'm not beaten; I want to force $100,000 degrees.' Their GP tax they will reinvent with a different name. They are cutting $80 billion out of hospitals and schools. They are cutting billions of dollars out of New South Wales. The retirement age is up—well done! But you have brought the pension down and you have frozen superannuation.
In the next six weeks we in the Labor party will be making sure we talk to pensioners. We will be making sure they understand that Labor will not let Tony Abbott and this mob opposite pocket their pension increases. In the next six weeks we will hold them to account. We will explain to Australians that there will be no touching the pensions and no touching Medicare. We will make sure that we keep this government honest in the lead-up to the next budget. (Time Expired)
All we heard in the last 10-minute rant was Tony Abbott, Tony Abbott, Tony Abbott. He covets Tony Abbott's job. He will never get it. But, mind you, he has the member for Sydney coveting his job. The member for Grayndler should have it. The people wanted the member for Grayndler as the opposition leader, but, no, the caucus wanted the member for Maribyrnong. We know that the people wanted the member for Grayndler.
I have to say I agree with the member for Maribyrnong when he said that the budget is of the people, by the people, for the people. He is right of course. He is totally right. But if he believes that, if in his heart of hearts he believes that the budget is of the people, by the people, for the people, why did Labor produce so many bad budgets? Why did Labor produce deficit after deficit after deficit after deficit?
There's still a couple more.
After deficit after deficit. And they would have kept going, but the people spoke.
Listening to the opposition leader, it was a bit like that annoying voice on your vehicle's global positioning system. We all have GPSs, with their outdated maps. Let us say the GPS is activated even though the driver knows the way. So the driver has the GPS activated, the driver knows the way and the maps are, say, pre 7 September 2013. So we have outdated maps, the GPS is on and it saying, 'Turn back, turn back.' The driver knows they are going the right way—and the coalition is the driver, in this instance—but the GPS is saying, 'Bear left, bear left.' That is what the member for Maribyrnong is like, 'Let's do a U-turn, let's do a U-turn.'
He denies the fact of the election. He denies the 7 September 2013 election result. He is still on those outdated maps. He is still saying, 'Do a U-turn, bear left, bear left.' He is saying, 'Going the wrong way' when the people of Australia know that we are going the right way. The people know that we are getting Australia back on the map, back in the right position.
If anyone has any doubt about Labor wanting to do U-turns, wanting to reintroduce carbon taxes, wanting to reintroduce mining taxes, wanting to take us back to the debt and deficit legacy that it so loves, let's read from the budget speech produced by none other than the member for Lilley. He starts off, 'The four years of surpluses I announce tonight' and on and on and on. Who was he trying to kid? He was like the annoying voice of the outdated GPS, 'Turn back, bear left.'
We know that the coalition are getting Australia back on track. We know we are heading in the right direction. More importantly, Australians know we are heading in the right direction. The people of Australia know they are in for a bit of a tough haul, and that is unfortunate because of the debt and deficit legacy left by the mob opposite—a debt to GDP ratio of 122 per cent if left unchecked. When the coalition came to government, our net debt was on track to reach $5.6 trillion by 2054 in today's dollars, which would been equivalent to one of the highest in the developed world. Under the current legislated arrangements, our net debt has been halved to 60 per cent of GDP. That is because of the good work by the Treasurer, the good work by his new Assistant Treasurer and the good work by the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, in the other place. If all of the measures in the last budget were implemented, our net debt would continue to decline and we would start building budget surpluses again.
We are not getting any help from those opposite. They continue to block their own savings measures. It is like that GPS voice again, 'Traffic jam ahead, traffic jam ahead.' And there is a traffic jam ahead; it is called 'Labor in the Senate'. Come on board with us. Get in the back seat and help us to steer this vehicle in the right direction. Stop telling us to, 'Bear left.' Stop telling us to, 'Make a U-turn.' We know where we are going. We know what we have to do. Please help us. Stop trying to correct the vehicle. Stop trying to make us go in the wrong direction.
This coalition government was elected on a policy platform where our No. 1 priority was to get Australia's budget and spending back under control. Incremental savings over time make a difference. Only by achieving these savings and through a concerted effort to repair the budget can government afford the sorts of things that Australians want it to do.
We have made considerable progress in our first budget. The release of the Intergenerational report confirms this. The reform measures already implemented have cut in half Labor 's projected debt and deficit. That is a great start. We are facing up to some of our structural, economic and fiscal challenges, including an ageing population, our exposure to falling terms of trade and the current unsustainable rate of government spending. Those opposite are not telling us what they would do if they had the Treasury benches. They are not telling us. They have no plan for the future.
All the member for Maribyrnong can talk about when he stands up is Tony Abbott. He is obsessed with Tony Abbott. We are pressing on with the task of repealing red tape. It started under the member for Kooyong. It continues under the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister—repealing red tape and getting rid of bureaucracy. We are creating export opportunities for Australian businesses and we are investing in infrastructure—$50 billion, the biggest infrastructure spend in Australia's history. Labor left a legacy of debt and deficit.
That's all they are good for.
Yes, that's all they are good for. Labor had six years governing the country, which demonstrated its inability to make the tough decisions, to make the tough calls. What they did demonstrate was their ability to spend and spend after inheriting a strong budget surplus. No government ever came in, as the Rudd government did in 2007, with a better balance sheet, with a better set of books, with a better set of economic figures. What did those opposite do? They just wasted the golden opportunity that Australia had, the government had, to put the country in a great position.
Under the policy settings that we inherited from Labor, Australia was headed for continuous deficits year after year for 40 long, sorry years. The coalition was elected to make tough decisions. We are doing that. We are spending on all sorts of infrastructure—$500 million to fix black spots on roads, $300 million to construct the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail.
Today, we had a ministerial statement to cap water buyback at 1,500 gigalitres. The member for Watson opposite did not want to do that. He had charge of water. We had a situation where farmers were desperate for good water policy and he just ignored them. I will admit he came to Griffith and we had thousands of people turning up, worried about their futures. That was emblematic of what was happening all over Australia. This was just one portion of policy failure by Labor, but it was just an example, a microcosm, of what was happening nationwide. The member for Watson saw it. He saw it in those desperate farmers' and businesspeople's eyes. They wanted help but they got nothing from those opposite.
In the dying days of the New South Wales election campaign, true to its form, Labor is resorting to desperate last-ditch attempts to confuse people about the Pacific Highway. Together, the federal government and the New South Wales state government will complete the duplication of the Pacific Highway before the decade's end, and that is going to produce a much safer road not just for New South Wales motorists but for people all over Australia.
The New South Wales coalition government today has established an unprecedented partnership with New South Wales farmers—and I am sure that the member for Watson would appreciate that—through the steady and able leadership of Deputy Premier and Leader of the Nationals Troy Grant. I raise that because we have heard all about how they are very concerned about the state election, as we all should be, because it is an important watershed moment in the history of New South Wales. People should get on board in New South Wales and back the Baird-Grant government because it is rolling out infrastructure. It is doing all sorts of things for hospitals through the minister, as well as for education through Minister Piccoli, who is the member for Murrumbidgee and is running in the newly formed seat of Murray, down in the Riverina way.
Agriculture is front and centre in government policy at a state and federal level, with the centrepiece being the commitment to scrap the Native Vegetation Act 2003. This will certainly be popular amongst New South Wales farmers and landholders. It is monumental infrastructure investment from the Baird government which is creating jobs, hope, reward and opportunity in New South Wales, just as we are doing nationally. We are getting on with the job of fixing the debt and deficit, the mess created by those opposite. It would be absolutely chaotic if they were ever to get the treasury bench in this place again. We are certainly getting on with the job, and I absolutely reject the notion of this matter of public importance.
I am very sorry to have to disagree with the parliamentary secretary—
Because you like me so much!
We do! We agree on so much, but today he has really gone on an adventure!
It takes a very special government to cut health, to cut education, to cut pensions and to cut support for families—$6,000 from the ordinary family—and still more than double the deficit. How do you manage to expand the deficit and expand debt over the next 40 years—it is in their own Intergenerational reportand still be cutting, despite your promises, health, education, support for families and pensions?
I know not many of you noticed, but I was asked to leave during question time today for saying that I object to the fact that this government has a plan—the Treasurer has a secret plan—to cut more than $200 million from New South Wales in GST revenue. I am not ashamed to be thrown out of this place for standing up for the people of New South Wales. They have experienced extraordinary cuts already because of this government's broken promises, with $15 billion cut from New South Wales hospitals, $1.2 billion over the next four years alone, and $9½ billion cut from New South Wales's schools. I am not ashamed to stand up for the people of New South Wales and say, 'No more cuts, and no cut to the GST revenue that New South Wales rightly expects to receive.' Isn't it a shame that Mike Baird is not prepared to say, 'No more cuts to New South Wales'? Isn't it a shame that Mike Baird would rather keep relations good with his surfing buddy than stand up for the people of New South Wales?
We have seen over the last year the most chaotic approach to a budget, ever. We saw that in the first year of government, up until Joe Hockey's last budget, and since then we have seen the inability to get these budget measures through. Here we are lining up for a second budget, with the same chaos reigning. It is really worrying that the foreign minister finds out from the front page of the newspaper that her budget is going to be cut again, for the fourth time in a row. It is worrying that the way she stops that happening is by having a fight with the Treasurer in the chamber, during a condolence motion—
And then leaks the outcome.
and then leaks the outcome. What is extraordinary about this is not only that the foreign minister did not know but that members opposite seem to have missed what was in the budget last May. It is extraordinary that they do not understand that the cuts to legal services will close community legal services and family violence prevention legal services in the electorates.
We heard today from the Attorney-General that that is all fixed. He is a fixer apparently, just like the education minister. We have another fixer, and the Prime Minister is, I think, the other fixer. The Minister for Social Services—another fixer. They are all fixers. So the Attorney-General fixer went out today and said he had fixed the issue of legal services. I called the legal service in my electorate, the Redfern Legal Centre, who have done a fantastic job over many decades, and they said that instead of having a shortfall of about $340,000 they will have a shortfall of about $290,000. A $290,000 cut instead of a $341,970 cut means that they lose half their solicitors, lose three areas of legal practice and turn away 500 people. It means they cannot help the people who go to them normally for help, and that includes the victims of family violence in very large numbers.
On the one hand we have had the Minister for Social Services going out and saying he has fixed homelessness, when he never restored the $44 million they cut in the last budget. We have the Attorney-General saying they have fixed support for legal services for victims of domestic violence, and that is not true. Rosie Batty, the Australian of the Year, said that she was assured by the Prime Minister and by the minister assisting him, Michaelia Cash, that no front-line services to domestic violence victims would be cut, and that is not true. She has returned from Mildura, where they will cut one full-time lawyer, and that lawyer will finish work on 30 June.
We see services cut, the most important services. We have alcohol and drug services that are closing on 30 June, and the Royal Flying Doctor Service's Rural Women's GP Service is also facing closure on 30 June. (Time expired)
It is my pleasure to once again speak on a matter of public importance moved by those opposite about the budget. As with all previous contributions from those opposite, there was not a mention of their record that has put Australia in the difficult budget position it is in, not a mention of their debt legacy and not a mention of what they would do to rectify it.
You only need to go back and look at the figures—and we will never get the figures from them. Those opposite look back on the budget papers and they emotionally airbrush away their period in government. Because back in 2007, it is often said, they inherited no net debt. In fact, they inherited more than that. They inherited $44 billion in the bank. Within a year, they had spent about $30 billion of it. Within another year, they were running up debt. I will read to the House their debt accumulation over those years. They went from nearly $45 billion in the bank to $16 billion dollars in the bank to $42 billion in the red to $84 billion to $147 billion to $152 billion to $202 billion, and today we are at about $245 billion.
If you look at the Intergenerational Report and you look at the path ahead, they were taking us on an ever downward path deeper and deeper into red ink to 120 per cent of GDP from the 15 per cent today. In his contribution, the Leader of the Opposition had not one idea on how to fix it; and in the contribution of the deputy leader, not one idea on how to fix it.
As we finish up this sitting day today, we will come back on budget day and, again, those opposite will not have one single idea to advance. For the Leader of the Opposition to move an MPI on what he calls 'budget chaos' takes some front, not just because he was an intimate part of the budget chaos as an Assistant Treasurer but because of the policies he pursued. The shadow minister for finance is there at the table and not even speaking on it.
I am next. I am after you.
You are coming next? You are third in line, very good. Well you can talk about the record of the Labor years. Why don't you talk about the unclaimed moneys? I will read out those figures. Labor in government sought more and more desperate measures like seizing $550 million in funds and unclaimed moneys from bank accounts. We have reversed their position to the position that existed, without any acrimony at all.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member for Casey is entitled to be heard in silence.
The shadow minister interjects. He highlights his embarrassment over this issue of taking kids' bank accounts, taking pensioners' accounts. This is the fiscal equivalent of putting your hand down the back of everyone's lounge looking for gold coins. That is where you have got to in government. Those opposite come into this House on the last sitting day before the budget, 18 months nearly into this term and they do not have one idea of how they would fix the mess. Their answer is to stay on the debt road. The parliamentary secretary was quite right with his GPS analogy—you will forgive me for not following it; I am not as good an actor as the parliamentary secretary.
That is a very good analogy because Labor got us on the debt and deficit road. They got us from money in the bank to 15 per cent of GDP. They promised surplus after surplus and delivered deficit after deficit. Having created the mess—
Mr Giles interjecting—
Order! Member for Scullin.
The member this Scullin has a guilty conscience, but he was not here for all of it. You do not need to have the guilty conscience. You were not for all of it; you just have to defend the wreckage. You did not create it all; you came near the end.
On budget day, we will see what Labor have to say and I predict it will be the same as what they have been saying for 18 months. (Time expired)
Isn't it great that those opposite can continue to talk about the last term of government as though the Global Financial Crisis never happened? They will be proud that Peter Costello could deal with an Asian financial crisis but refuse to acknowledge that Wayne Swan could deal with a Global Financial Crisis yet they come in here and say, 'Oh no, how on earth is Joe Hockey meant to be able to deal with a change in the iron ore price?' That is the argument that they come into this chamber with.
The same Treasurer was holding a document which reportedly involved a $200-million cut to New South Wales in GST and refused to release it until after people vote. It is not the first time we have seen examples from this government of refusing to release a document until after people vote. When they had the Commission of Audit report, they made sure that that was not released before people voted in the WA election. Before the federal election, they made sure, before people voted, that they had not released their policies. This is the first government we have ever had that has turned out to release its election policies eight months after the election when they got to the budget. But in doing so, when they have had to reconcile with the broken promises of what the Prime Minister said before the election, they have come up with a new strategy.
The strategy that has been adopted here, no government has ever been brazen enough to adopt. When a broken promise has occurred, sometimes politicians say there was a context or there is a changed circumstance. Never before has Australia had a Prime Minister who thought the strategy was to say, 'No, I did not say it. It never happened.' People talk about this being a Prime Minister from the 1950s. That cannot be true because there was television in the 1950s. This Prime Minister works on the basis that, if he just says he never said it, there will be no record, no-one will know. This is a bit of a problem when people have watched the Prime Minister saying on television that a GDP to debt ratio of about 50 to 60 per cent is 'a pretty good result'. When he is asked a most basic question—when the Leader of the Opposition reads from a transcript and says, 'Prime Minister, did you say these words?'—the Prime Minister cannot answer yes, he cannot answer his own words. There is a debate going on at the moment in Australian politics: on one side are the words of the Prime Minister of Australia and on the other side are the words of the Prime Minister of Australia—and they are both losing in this debate! But it is not the only time the Prime Minister has done it. The government's entire economic narrative is based on a fundamental lie: they argue that they are somehow fixing debt and deficit. Since when was doubling the deficit a way of fixing it? But that is exactly what they did within a few months of coming to office. Having done so, as has been reported in TheAustralian Financial Review, they have since blown out the deficit by a further $80 billion and blown out the debt by $200 billion.
Opposition members interjecting—
That's right, within a few months of coming to office they made the decision to make Australia's debt unlimited by doing a deal with the Greens. To somehow defend what they have done the Prime Minister has decided that he is now armed with a document. He has a graph—and the graph has different colours! Here is the problem for the Prime Minister when he refers to the different lines on the graph: the line that he claims is Labor's line is the line that was brought out after the Treasurer, a few months later, had doubled the deficit. There is a line that they refer to as 'previous policy'. They are right, it is previous policy; it is Liberal policy from earlier in this term. The line that they refer to as 'if they could get everything through'—their proposed policy—involves policies that by the time this document was released they had already said they had abandoned. That line includes that the GP tax is here to stay. That line includes that they will not give a decent deal to members of the Australian Defence Force. That line includes that they will do nothing about manufacturing jobs in the car industry. And yet to this day they still argue that they are the things they want to do. On that part of it, on those policies, I agree—they do still want to introduce the GP tax. (Time expired)
I want to have a bit of a reset here. I think it is instructive for people listening that the shadow minister for finance has just spent five minutes talking about an intergovernmental report but, interestingly, has not mentioned any of the figures in it. The point is that these guys are in denial. The opposition are in denial. The motion we are debating today—a so-called motion of public importance—was put by the Leader of the Opposition. Where is the Leader of the Opposition? He is not here. There are only five or so members of the opposition here. There are 55 members of the opposition and they are just not here. That is how much they regard this as a matter of public importance.
Opposition members interjecting—
An opposition member: It is your motion.
The fact is that it is your motion. I listened very carefully to the Leader of the Opposition's speech. I listened very carefully to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's speech. Just then, I listened very carefully to the Manager of Opposition Business, who is also the shadow minister for finance. I listened very carefully to what he had to say. None of the three mentioned what their economic policy is. None of them mentioned what their plan is for the debt that they are supposedly concerned about—the debt they created. There wasn't a debt when they came into government in 2007.
As the member for Casey very succinctly said earlier, in 2007, when the Labor Party came into power, the federal government had $44 billion in net financial assets and they blew it completely in the course of two years. According to page 16 of the Intergenerational report, by the end of Labor's six-year period of government we were on a trajectory that was leading to an underlying cash deficit of 11.7 per cent of GDP by 2054-55 and—get this—net debt would reach almost 122 per cent of GDP. How much is 122 per cent of GDP in 2055? It is some $5.6 trillion. What countries would we be compared to if our net debt did actually reach 122 per cent of GDP? We would be compared to Greece and Spain. We would be compared to those countries in Europe that are considered to be basket cases in terms of their economic management. That is the trajectory that we have been on and that is the legacy of the Labor Party.
Opposition members interjecting—
I love the way you guys verbal the Prime Minister. In the last few weeks the Prime Minister has been making a clear and sensible point. He has noted that the Intergenerational report has completely blasted the case of the Labor Party that there was a major debt problem, and, secondly, has shown that in the first budget of the Abbott government we have halved that debt problem. We are now on a trajectory, under current legislated programs, that would take us to a deficit of some six per cent of GDP by 2055 and net debt is projected to reach almost 60 per cent of GDP. That would still be an appalling $2.6 trillion. We did not say that is a great result; we said it is an improvement on what Labor had otherwise locked in with their policy agenda. We have halved that problem, and now we have got to a situation where we now move on, in the next budget and the next budget and, after the election, the budget after that and the budget after that, to get back to surplus, we hope, within the next five to six years. I hope that is the case, because we need to get this under control, because we do not want to be in a situation where we are facing a future like Greece, like Spain, like Italy.
My attack will be based on the chaotic budget narrative, but I will say one thing about the narrative in the MPI debate. The government speakers have all been singularly consistent in forgetting about the global financial crisis. There was a collective amnesia during this period. We know where their leader was during the infamous stimulus vote, after a healthy dinner upstairs—he was asleep. Well, that is the most charitable view of where he was. He was asleep. Where were these guys for the last six years? The whole GFC passed them by. So we have seen collective amnesia between 2007 and 2013, and now we have got a chaotic budget narrative as the replacement.
We have seen the Prime Minister have more backflips than an Olympic gymnast. We have seen Mr Abbott have more positions on the budget then there are in the Kama Sutra. We had a budget emergency, then the budget bushfire, then 'Don't worry; we've passed 99 per cent of the budget, so don't worry about anything.' It is all: 'Nothing to look at.' Then we have had the 'feral' Senate, risking civilisation, although the government have been a bit dubious about who are the ferals in the Senate, depending on whose vote they need. In the last few weeks, we have had the farce of the Intergenerational report, a document that was jury-rigged out of the Treasurer's office, a document that Treasury officials ran a million miles from. But it gave the Prime Minister a prop, a prop that he hid behind like his Real Solutions pamphlet during the campaign—his shield: 'Don't touch me; read what's in this document.' But in the end he stuffed that up, as he did with Real Solutions. I will proudly read his full quote—I have been accused of misquoting—from the press conference on Wednesday, 18 March 2015:
… but a ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60 per cent is a pretty good result looking around the world …
That is the full quote. This is a gentleman who said that a debt to GDP ratio of 10 per cent was a budget emergency—but 50 to 60 per cent is a pretty good result! That is the ridiculous position we have got from the Prime Minister.
We have also seen the cabinet leaking like a sieve. We have seen the worst shadow Treasurer in history, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs, endorse an iron cartel. No wonder she got sacked. We had the member for New England's disastrous foray as shadow finance minister—and who can forget that?—when he mistook millions for billions. We remember. He was swiftly sacked, and I look forward to the member for Riverina replacing him at some point. I trust he will get his m's and b's right, so that will be good. We have had the eye-rolling by the foreign minister to roll a cabinet decision. We have had the Malcolm robocalls. We have had a circus instead of cabinet. Unfortunately, it is the Australian people who are paying the price for this.
What we need to recognise is that this is not just an echo chamber debate. This is not a debate that is just full of rhetoric. The concrete results of their failure to cement a budget strategy are paramount in the Australian community. We have seen confidence down, among both business and consumers. We have seen capital investment at a very low level. We have seen very sluggish economic growth. We have seen unemployment at a 12-year high. We have got a crisis of youth unemployment. We have got average hours worked in the economy falling. We have got the highest labour underutilisation rate since 1995, when we were coming out of the nineties recession. Perhaps most concerning of all, we have got the highest underemployment rate since records began. Since 1978, we have not had a period where there has been more underemployment, not even during the eighties recession or the nineties recession.
We are at risk of a huge jobs crisis because of the budget fiasco over there. Their budget is not helping the employment crisis; it is worsening it. That is a great tragedy. The impact in my area is being well and truly felt. In the Hunter region—which I am sure my colleague the member for Newcastle will talk about as well—we have got unemployment above 10 per cent for the first time in a long time. We have seen $220 million in cuts to Hunter and Central Coast hospitals. We have got 26,000 pensioners in my area under attack through the pension cuts—cuts that have already occurred, through the $1.4 billion concession cut. I have got uni students who are worried about the debt they face.
What rubbish!
I hear 'rubbish' from the other side. The concessions have been cut.
They have not!
You do not even understand your own budget, Member for Gilmore. You do not understand your own budget.
As I conclude, this budget is in chaos. They will not be able to reset it in May. What we will see is more chaos from an incompetent government who are only interested in looking after their own jobs. Unfortunately, it is the people of Australia, the people of New South Wales and the people of the Hunter who will suffer the most from this indulgence.
It is very interesting than the word 'chaos' is being used, because I would like to give some feedback to the other side right now. I had the privilege and the pleasure last night to be at a dinner in the Great Hall and I sat with nine other people, none of them politicians, none of them even a member of a political party, but very importantly—
Opposition members interjecting—
You might actually want to listen to this, because—you know what?—they employ people. Amongst the nine of them, they employ thousands of people. Do you know what the constant theme was?
Ms Hall interjecting—
You might like to know what that feels like, because you would not how to employ people and you would not know how to run a business. But do you know what those people said? They said, 'Thank God you've ended the chaos.' That is what they said. They said that, for years—
Ms Hall interjecting—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
They gave me the examples. They said—
Order! The good members on my left should be in their places if they wish to interject.
They said, 'As businesspeople, we could not afford to invest; we could not have the confidence to invest.' They were giving me the examples. They said the chaos was things like banning live exports overnight after a TV program. The chaos was: 'Let's call an election nine months out. That's a good idea.' That was a chaotic decision. What that meant—
Opposition members interjecting—
You would not understand this, but I will try and explain it to you. When an election is called, businesses stop investing, because consumers get nervous. Consumers think there is uncertainty. That was another example that they gave me. Again, if we are going to mention the word 'chaos', it was really interesting that that was the theme that I was hearing last night. Let us look at the budget. The budget has done a couple of things. Actually, let us stay with chaos and go off the budget for one second. One of the ladies last night said: 'What about the chaotic boat policy they had?' Anyway, we will not go there!
One of the big themes of last year's budget was infrastructure. Let us talk about infrastructure. I will also compliment the Baird government, the New South Wales coalition government, because with the infrastructure program that they are running out in the state electorates, some in my electorate, there is going to be a massive infrastructure spend on hospitals, bridges, rail, trails; there is all sorts of infrastructure spending happening. One of the major infrastructure projects that we are running out—and I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, you are very pleased about it—is the duplication of the Pacific Highway. The other side wanted to cut spending on that. They wanted to lower the Commonwealth government's spend from 80 per cent to 50 per cent. Well, that is nice! That was a great idea! We said we would maintain the spending at 80 per cent—and we will.
Let us stay on the budget. Spending on health, spending on education and spending on welfare are all increasing. There is an interesting little analogy with the budget too, with the increases in all these areas. The people last night were businesspeople who have employed people, people who actually know how the commerce world works. Wouldn't it be nice to have some of those over on that side! As a citizen, not as a politician, I would love to look over at that side and see some over there! Is there anyone with a commercial brain? Is there a Hawke there? Is there a Keating there? God, no. We are in trouble, because there is no-one. There is no economic literacy that comes out from that side.
The other thing the people last night said was: 'Thank you for stopping the chaos, and thank you for the free trade agreements.' Let us look at chaos. Do you know where there is chaos? You love talking about sustainability. Let us talk about sustainability. We could talk about environmental sustainability. That is a good idea. I believe in that as well. But nothing of economic sustainability is ever breathed from that side. It is populism, it is tax, it is spend—and it is populism. It is populism. Do you know what you get from that? You get chaos. You get situations like in Greece or in South America. That is chaos: when you owe money to people and they say, We want it back,' that is when you get chaos.
It is not unusual to be speaking about the budget in late March, as we are now. It is just that we are normally talking about the upcoming budget, not the one from last year. The chaos and disruption that the government have caused with their ongoing wrathful cuts and broken promises are still reverberating around the country, which is why we continue, day after day, in this parliament to talk about the budget that was—the budget that has never quite been yet and is never going to be.
We know about the hurt that the budget is causing out there to the Australian people and the hurt it is causing to our economy. It has been 10 months now since that last budget, which was described most aptly by an unnamed source among members opposite as that 'stinking, rotten carcass' that hangs around the neck of the government. It has been 10 months, and what do we have? We have wages down and unemployment up. We have growth down and youth unemployment up. We have confidence way down and cost of living way up.
This government of broken promises has torn up that social contract with the Australian public by pushing ahead with its purely ideological agenda for cuts. It is cuts to education, cuts to health, cuts to family payments, cuts to science and the arts, cuts to the ABC and the SBS, cuts to the environment, cuts to the Human Rights Commission, cuts to overseas aid, cuts to social services, cuts to legal services, cuts to Indigenous affairs, cuts to pensions: I do not know where to stop!
In my electorate of Newcastle, when the budget was handed down—the one that was handed down last year—unemployment was 4.7 per cent. In the latest data, it has doubled. Thousands of jobs have been lost and there is no sign of repair, no plan for the future. Rarely a week goes by that I am not fielding calls from distressed local employers telling me that they are having to let more good people go. Just this month, the local shipbuilder in my electorate, Forgacs, announced that they have been forced to sack another 100 employees from their plant—another 100 people with no jobs in my electorate—and they are in danger of losing their entire workforce by Christmas. A few weeks earlier, Downer EDI announced that 59 workers would lose their jobs from their Hunter operations. The week before, steel supplier Martensite Australia shut the doors of their Tomago operations—another 20 jobs gone from the region. Many smaller job losses go largely unreported, but they are no less damaging to the health and wellbeing of the workers and families that are affected.
While not all jobs losses can be blamed on governments, state and federal governments have a very significant role to play in terms of creating the right economic conditions for employers to prosper and operate with confidence about the future. The Prime Minister is too busy fighting Labor, talking about the past and talking about his own enemies in his own internal operations—
Thirty-nine members!
Thirty-nine members! He spends so much time focusing on those issues that he has forgotten what he is here for. Prime Minister, here is a thought: how about fighting for someone else's job, rather than your own? How about fighting for hardworking Australians; for students, pensioners, unemployed people looking for a break and Indigenous Australians; and for our national future? How about fighting for the Forgacs shipbuilders? How about mapping out a long-term plan for a rolling build of Defence contracts? How about fighting for the lawyers who work for Aboriginal legal services and who now find themselves without jobs, despite record incarceration rates of Indigenous people in this nation? Listen to what these people are saying in the community. How about fighting for our renewable energy industry and our scientists at CSIRO?
Your cuts have led to 161 job losses at CSIRO in New South Wales this year alone. Where is this Prime Minister? Where is the Premier of New South Wales? Can they not make a guarantee to the people of my electorate that there will be no job losses in the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle? No, they cannot, because all they have done on their watch is make cuts to jobs. (Time expired)
It is a great pleasure to address this MPI today on budget chaos, which we inherited from previous Labor governments. I start by taking the member for Charlton to task a bit that we 'don't mention the global financial crisis'. The Rudd government was not the first government to experience external shocks. In 1997 Peter Costello and the Howard government had to deal with the Asian financial meltdown. In 2001 we had the dotcom crash. So governments in the past have certainly had to deal with external shocks. On the point about the global financial crisis, in conjunction with that we saw a massive boom out of China. Through the period that the previous Labor government handed down massive deficits we had the best terms of trade this country has seen in 100 years. I want to put that into perspective, at the start.
If you want to talk about budget chaos, I have a long list of achievements by the previous government. We all know them, but I will run through them because they do deserve a mention: pink batts; school halls; the previous Treasurer, Mr Swan, standing at the dispatch box predicting that the next four budgets would all be in surplus; and the mining tax was announced, which had massive spending initiatives attached and ended up raising very little revenue and had to be adjusted eight times, before they finally came to the wrong conclusion.
There are others that do not get mentioned often. One of these is the $1.8 billion fringe benefits tax, which led to almost immediate job losses in the car and other retail sectors. Cash for clunkers is another absolute beauty. And there is GroceryWatch. Probably the daddy of them all is the NBN, which was put together on the back of an envelope on a VIP jet on the way to Darwin. That is a project—
On the back of a beer coaster.
I stand corrected; it was on the back of a beer coaster. My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, if I inadvertently misled the House there. That is a project that started out as $4½ billion on the back of a beer coaster and it manifested itself up to a $70 billion project. Our minister for Communications, Minister Turnbull, has done a magnificent job in pulling that back into a somewhat reasonable project. We are all guilty of it in this place—we tend to try to score points. I guess that is what this MPI is all about.
Today I want to talk a little more about things that touch the people in my electorate, the things they really care about not, so much the point scoring that goes on in this place but the things that affect lives. I want to touch on some of the achievements of this government in economic policy areas since we won government in September 2013. Probably in my electorate the most important policy initiative has been the restoration of the live-export trade.
People underestimate the damage that the decision by the previous government did to the psyche of people across regional Western Australia and across regional Australia more generally. It was not just the economic damage that it did to their livelihoods. It was the message the government gave them—that they did not care about them. They did not care about their industry, they did not care about their families and they did not care about their jobs. Ultimately, they did not even care about the livestock that these people cared for, because it created some massive animal-welfare issues for those people to deal with. If they had been in the car industry or some other unionised industry, there would have been an industry-recovery package or an industry support package.
People in that industry got no support whatsoever from the government. I am very proud to stand here as part of a government that has restored that live-export trade. I have some numbers here.
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
We have a system where cruelty to animals is—
I thank the member for O'Connor. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
by leave—I move:
That the leave of absence given to the honourable member for Higgins for parental leave purposes be amended to conclude on 25 June 2015.
I thank the opposition for their cooperation.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: residential accommodation and staff amenities at the Australian Embassy, Kabul, Afghanistan.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade proposed to undertake upgrades to residential accommodation and staff amenities within the Australian Embassy, Kabul, Afghanistan. The need for the works arises out of the security environment and restrictions on staff movement. The works will improve amenities available to staff in what is a challenging operating environment. The works will also improve the security for the post by consolidating the area in which people need to move to access facilities.
The project consists of two parts: the refurbishment of Star House and upgrades to the American Houses. The overall cost is estimated to be in the order of $23 million, excluding GST. I am confident the committee will undertake a timely inquiry into these works and I look forward to its report. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I rise to express my sincere condolences to the family of Malcolm Fraser—especially to his widow, Tamie—and to recognise his contribution to our country.
Malcom Fraser's time in office is so often, and inevitably, compared with what came before. Any successor to the brashness and excited chaos of the Whitlam years would unavoidably seem quiet and considered in comparison, and a leader of Malcolm's style can seem to blend into the background. But this record of quiet and considered government marks a continuation of, rather than a break from, the preceding years of extreme social change.
Without grabbing the headlines in the way that his predecessor did, Malcolm set about creating a number of reforms, agencies and initiatives that were ground breaking for their time and remain with us today, 35 years on—an enduring legacy. These reforms have indisputably improved the condition of Australia, and have improved the lives of Australians and many people around the world. These reforms highlight the importance of Malcolm's time as Prime Minister and beyond.
Even with the knowledge that he was a quiet achiever, it took me aback to see the huge raft of reforms that he enacted. He banned mining on Fraser Island and was instrumental in the creation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, safeguarding one of the nation's and the planet's great wonders. He was instrumental in designating it as a World Heritage Site in 1981, alongside Kakadu, Lord Howe Island and others. He also banned whaling in Australian waters.
He commissioned the Campbell report of 1981, which laid the foundations for the eventual deregulation of the financial system. He set up the automatic indexation of pensions, simplified the test to qualify for pensions and introduced a new housing scheme for pensioners.
In an area particularly close to my heart, he founded the AIS in response to our lacklustre outing at the Montreal Olympics. In doing so he created the framework to push our young athletes, to give them the opportunity to deliver the results that we expected then and which we enjoy to this day. He also established the sports development program, the National Athlete Award Scheme and the National Committee on Sport and Recreation for the Disabled—always a champion for the disadvantaged.
He oversaw the process of giving the Northern Territory self-government and he guided the nation's first land rights act through parliament. He also introduced income equalisation deposits as a self-help aid to primary producers, to assist in times of drought. His government introduced the family allowance, providing direct help for mothers and families, as well as the lone fathers benefit and the family income supplement.
He was responsible for the creation of a number of commissions and legal reforms, including the introduction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the National Companies and Securities Commission and the Australian Human Rights Commission, and he was also responsible for creating the freedom of information legislation.
Internationally, he set up the nuclear safeguards agreement negotiated with 10 nations and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He was famously a critic of apartheid and a vocal critic of global injustice. He introduced import parity oil pricing as a means of conserving existing supplies, and he encouraged exploration.
He stood up for the disadvantaged across all fronts, setting up the National Women's Advisory Council, the National Aboriginal Conference and the National Youth Advisory Group. And he established commercial FM radio.
But of all his reforms, it is those in the area of our acceptance of other cultures and immigrants that I believe have had the biggest impact on Australia today. They have certainly irreversibly improved my electorate of Bennelong. It was mentioned numerous times at the beginning of this debate on Monday how Malcolm was the first person to use the word 'multicultural' on the floor of this House. But his commitment to the concept extended far beyond words. Increasing our immigration intake and resettling Vietnamese asylum seekers is one thing, but Malcolm went to the next level of making them feel at home, and in doing so, changing the very fabric of Australian society.
The SBS is a concrete manifestation of Malcolm's ideals, and testament to the sincerity with which he welcomed others to our shores. It will be an everlasting memorial to Malcolm's vision for a better, multicultural Australia.
I met Malcolm on several occasions, most recently in January with his wife, Tamie. I reminded him of his days training under Stan Nichols at Stan's Melbourne gym. Stan had won great notoriety as Harry Hopman's fitness guru, training our greatest tennis players and other athletes. Stan had told me of his encounter with Malcolm. As Malcolm referred to recently, when asked if he had ever been a footballer he had said no, that the only role he could play would be as the goalpost. Stan said that Malcolm was not a gifted athlete, but he was most genuine in his efforts to get fit and he was meticulous in paying his fees!
When I told Tamie of my father's deep love and appreciation of her, Malcolm beamed with pride and associated himself with my dad. He was very funny and he was self-deprecating, but most of all he luxuriated in the complement of his Tamie. Malcolm sat with my partner over lunch, who was made to feel immediately comfortable. My partner has since bragged of her brush with this lovely couple. We share in a small way Tamie's sadness of loss.
Some people stir emotions with the power of their personalities and their charisma. When this is present in our actors, our singers or our sportsmen, it is cause for even greater celebration of their accomplishments. However, these qualities in a political leader can stir our emotions and harm our better judgement. Good government must be based on facts and be delivered in a practical way. During his term in public office we may not have fallen in love with Malcolm—fallen under his spell of charisma and personal charm. But when the facts of his time in office face the scrutiny of that perfect vision of hindsight, a most enduring set of accomplishments are plain to see. Long after the personalities have been forgotten and only the facts—the true legacy of his leadership of our country—remain, Malcolm Fraser's contribution will stand, as he did, very tall.
It is with some sadness, obviously, that I stand to speak on the condolence motion on the Right Honourable John Malcolm Fraser and with considerable sadness for those Liberal members of the Riverina electorate.
Malcolm Fraser was the Prime Minister who came to Wagga Wagga—and we did not have a lot of visits by prime ministers. He came in January 1977 to address the Young Liberals and he spoke eloquently of the social reform agenda that he and his government wanted to get on with. Obviously, when he came to power in 1975, under the controversial Dismissal circumstances, it was a time of great social upheaval—we had the end of the Vietnam War, attitudes in society were changing and divorce laws were changing.
Malcolm Fraser was what the people of the Australia wanted at that time, although Labor were seen as the great social reformers and this side of politics were not. Malcolm Fraser certainly brought a lot of social change and reform—and good changes—to the position of Prime Minister and to the parliament of Australia.
I know growing up in a conservative household—the member for Cunningham probably finds that hard to believe—that Malcolm Fraser was certainly very, very highly regarded as was the Liberal member for Farrer and later for Hume, Wal Fife. No-one spoke ill of either Malcolm Fraser or Wal Fife in my house.
Looking down, my late father might think, 'Gee, Michael is in the National Party.' My father had a great fondness for the Liberal Party and, obviously, the values that were espoused by the Liberal Party in concert with the Country Party at the time were very strongly held in our household.
Those values also forged a great connection. The values and the respect that Malcolm Fraser, as Prime Minister, had for the Country Party have continued. They were obviously in existence before Mr Fraser but they have continued. His great relationship with Peter Nixon, Doug Anthony and Ian Sinclair forged that great coalition relationship which the country has come to depend on for solidarity, reliability and probably, best of all, stability. In the coalition, the Australian people know that all those attributes are at the forefront.
When Malcolm Fraser came to Wagga in January 0n 7 January 1977, he spoke to the Ninth National Convention of the Young Liberal Movement at the Riverina College of Advanced Education. The RCAE is now proudly the Charles Sturt University—a vision of Wal Fife's, somebody who in conjunction with the Liberal government of the day helped to turn the RCAE into the RMIHE, the Riverina-Murray Institute of Higher Education, and then into Charles Sturt University. We are very proud to have a great university doing wonderful things in Wagga Wagga. Obviously, successive governments have helped forge those great tertiary links in this important regional capital.
Mr Fraser told the Young Liberals that he could not pretend that changes to his government already would resolve all the problems in social areas. He said:
But they are an important beginning and we will do more.
Mr Fraser said that income security and care of the aged were two areas in which the government intended to act in the future—of course they did act in the future.
The government also intended to introduce freedom of information legislation in the next sitting of parliament. Of course we all know now that that FOI legislation is so very important in helping journalists do their jobs—it was great to see Peter Greste in the public gallery today; if ever there was a beacon of light, a beacon of hope, for freedom of the press, it is Peter Greste. It was great to see him get the acknowledgment that he deserved. It is not very often that somebody can get a clap in the parliament with the endorsement of the Speaker, but Peter Greste certainly did. The freedom of information legislation that the Liberal Party-Country Party government passed was so important to journalists' ability to do their work. I say that as a former journalist and a former newspaper editor.
Mr Fraser added that his government's economic policy was an intrinsic part of its approach to social reform. He said:
The ability to carry through social reform cannot be separated from a government's capacity to provide the nation with responsible economic management.
The Fraser government, when it came to power in 1975, had a set of economic figures. It had supply problems and a chaotic dysfunctional government to follow on from. It did just that, which is what good coalition governments do. Mr Fraser told the Young Liberal's convention in Wagga Wagga:
Reducing inflation is central to our ability as a nation and as a government to assist those who are disadvantaged or living in poverty.
He said the poorest people in society were harmed most by the erosion of living standards brought about by inflation and by unemployment which inevitably followed inflation. He continued:
In this situation the government had to give priority to righting the economy and defeating inflation.
We have pursued a consistent economic strategy directed at achieving this goal.
Although there is still a long way to go, at the end of our first year in office, we have made substantial progress towards dealing with Australia's economic problems.
However, Mr Fraser warned that it should be equally recognised that economic management alone is not enough. He said that all the social reforms Australia needed would not inevitably flow from economic recovery. He said:
Beating inflation is and must be the dominant objective of this government and is not and cannot be the sole objective of a responsible government While we have been unrelenting in the fight against inflation, we have also been carrying through the commitment which all of us here share among the Liberals—to achieving major social reforms.
Mr Fraser told the convention that Australia needed imaginative proposals for reform which avoided the cliches and posturing which had done Australia so much harm in the recent past. He said:
The Labor experience has shown us that one of the greatest traps that a government can fall into is to attempt to win political kudos by dressing up ill-considered change in reform.
It is almost a flashback. Reading those words of Malcolm Fraser in Wagga Wagga in 1977 takes us back to a time and place which is being replicated now. The Labor experience has shown us that one of the greatest traps a government can fall into is to attempt to win political kudos by dressing up ill-considered change as reform. We heard the member for Page, in the matter of public importance debate, talking about the fatal flaws of populism. Government should not be about populism. I appreciate that we all try to win political points, but, overall, we have to make the hard decisions. We have to take the tough road.
Malcolm Fraser and his government—the Liberals in conjunction with the Country Party—certainly took that tough road. They did not always win points for it; they were not always popular because of it; but, certainly, they took the tough road and they got this country back on track. They got this country back to where it needed to be. Mr Fraser said that his government's reform had recognised that radical action was necessary in some areas, that experimental approaches were necessary in others and that constant attention must be paid to the consequences of policies and to the administrative machineries capable of implementing programs. He said that 1976 could be considered a year in which the Commonwealth government carried through some of its most significant reforms since Federation. He said:
But these reforms can only be a beginning …
The Prime Minister was well received. As I said before, it was a time when we did not see a lot of prime ministers in Wagga Wagga. Bob Menzies came to the races, would you believe, the Murrumbidgee Turf Club races, in the fifties and sixties. Good old Gough Whitlam turned up to Wagga in 1974 to do a number of things, including opening the rugby league grandstand—the Schnelle Harmon grandstand at the Eric Weissel Oval. It was around Christmas time and, as I told the chamber in the condolence motion for Gough Whitlam, Whitlam remarked that he was 'so pleased that there were all the decorations and bunting in the main street for me; but then I realised it was for Christmas, not for me.' That was Gough—ever the humourist. It was good.
It is the great Australian way that, after the tumult of 1975, Gough and Malcolm were able to get together. Arm-in-arm they went for a republic and they did a lot of things that they believed in. Malcolm Fraser certainly changed his tune on a few things, but it was great that he and Gough put aside their differences. I think that says a lot about Australia. We do not have fisticuffs in this parliament. We might have an exchange of words; there is always a contest of ideas. I think sometimes the Australian public does not appreciate the fact that there are good friendships formed across the chamber. Imagine Mr Whitlam, losing the highest position in this country, that of Prime Minister, with the man who replaced him in such controversial, history-changing circumstances. He did not forget but he certainly forgave, and the two of them were able to form a strong bond—one could almost say a friendship, and no doubt it was. You can probably imagine that they are up there now looking down: Malcolm would be frowning in his own austere way, and Gough would be saying, 'We were much better in our day.' That is the great thing about Australian politics.
Malcolm Fraser will be very, very missed. I know that certainly in Wagga Wagga, where the Liberals have held sway since 1957, there are a lot of people—and even, dare I suggest, a lot of Labor people, too—who will mourn his passing, who will thank him for the social reform that he brought and who will always remember the circumstances around 1975 but who will say, 'There was a great man. There was somebody who did wonderful things in public life for Australia. '
That was a great speech from the member for Wannon, who talked about Malcolm Fraser's love of camellia growing and the fact that he once had 26 beers as he went from pub to pub to try and get more votes. But, at the end of the day, Malcolm Fraser was a farmer who got into the Lodge. I must say, whenever there is a farmer in the Lodge, it has to be a good thing because farmers are the true conservationists; farmers are the real workers of this country; farmers are the ones who grow food and fibre to help this nation. Malcolm Fraser was one of those great farmers. He brought a lot to the life of this parliament. He brought a lot to the life of this country. I pay my deepest respects on behalf of the people of the Riverina—those who voted for him, as well as those who rallied against him but who now remember with great fondness the great contribution that he made to public life in this nation. Malcolm Fraser, rest in peace.
In the very short time I have before the adjournment debate, I will at least start my tribute to the former Prime Minister of Australia, the Rt Hon. John Malcolm Fraser, who throughout his life, of course, was called Malcolm Fraser. Sometimes it seems to me that it is only in death that we can make a full assessment of a life. Until that time, the events of the day tend to draw our focus on a person: what they said last is what we concentrate on. In the case of Malcolm Fraser, we should look at his long and valuable contribution to Australian life.
It seems a great quirk of fate that, within six months, the two most prominent politicians of their time and the two greatest protagonists of the most turbulent passage in this young nation's democracy have both bid us farewell. The year 1975 saw, of course, one of the great schisms in Australian politics—the greatest, I think. It was my first time voting and I cannot tell you what a thrill it gave me to go along and not vote for the Labor Party, which I thought had created such an appalling mess in their fewer than three years in government, and vote for my Liberal candidate. In the great seat of Grey, even in that very convincing win, we were unable to unseat the sitting Labor member. It took some time after that before the seat of Grey returned a Liberal member, which it still has to this day. I must say how pleased and gratified I am by their current attitudes—
Debate interrupted.
This Saturday, the people of New South Wales will head to the polls for the state election. Like all elections, voters will be asking themselves a number of questions when thinking about how to cast their vote. They will be thinking about: who shares their values and priorities? Who has the best plan for growing jobs and education? And who will represent my community's best interests in the parliament?
For the people in the five state electorates that will fall within my federal electorate of Newcastle—the voters of Charlestown, Newcastle, Maitland, Port Stephens and Wallsend—I have no doubt that Labor comes out on top in all questions being asked, and that a Foley-led state Labor government has the best plan for New South Wales.
Importantly, there is also the question of trust to be considered. Who has earned the trust of the community? While every electorate and community has its own story to tell when it comes to trust, in the majority of the five seats that touch my electorate the story is a sordid tale of Liberal betrayal and broken trust. A lot of voters are understandably disenchanted with politics. And the people of Newcastle, and in my region, have every right to feel angry, hurt and betrayed, because of the actions of the former Liberal members elected in 2011.
For some electors in the seat of Newcastle, it will be their fourth trip to the polls in the last six months after being forced to vote in a state by-election, a lord mayoral by-election and a local council by-election—all caused by the actions of the disgraced former Liberal members.
In four seats that Liberal members won in 2011, only one member is now retiring from politics, the member for Maitland—and, I might add, the only Liberal in the Hunter region not disgraced at ICAC. The other three Liberals elected at the last general election could not bear to stand any more public scrutiny, so they will not be standing again. Tim Owen and Andrew Cornwell, the former Liberal members for Newcastle and Charlestown, have already gone after resigning last year in disgrace following shocking revelations uncovered by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. In the seat of Port Stephens the Liberal elected in 2011, Craig Baumann, is not running either—again, following revelations from the ICAC.
Their tales of deceit and mistrust have alienated voters, and the by-elections forced by the snap resignations came at great financial and social cost to the Newcastle community. The damage that the Liberal Party members caused is taking time to repair, but it has started with the election of Labor candidates at both state by-elections held last October.
The now member for Newcastle, Tim Crakanthorp and member for Charlestown, Jodie Harrison, won these by-elections and have been outstanding voices for their communities since elected. I wish them well this Saturday as their seek re-election. They join the formidable and fierce advocate for her community, Sonia Hornery, the Minister for the Hunter and member for Wallsend, who will be standing for re-election. I know the community trusts and respects Sonia and I have every confidence that she will be re-elected to represent her constituents of Wallsend.
In the other two seats within my electorate, the seats of Maitland and Port Stephens, I wholeheartedly support the two fantastic candidates, Jenny Aitchison and Kate Washington, who I am sure will represent their electorates admirably if elected. And, while these Labor candidates will not be facing sitting Liberal members of parliament, they will face Liberal candidates led by the Prime Minister's best mate, Mike Baird.
Let's have a look at what the Liberal's track record is like in Newcastle and the Hunter region. How are they tracking on jobs? Unemployment in Newcastle has more than doubled on their watch. Thousands of jobs have been lost, but the Liberals have no plan for the future and no support for those unemployed today. Shipbuilders and train manufacturers were rallying in Newcastle again this week against the complete lack of support, action and investment in their industries from the Baird and the Abbott Liberal governments.
What about education? How are the Liberals tracking on education? In the last fortnight, more than 800 Novocastrians have written to me about the Abbott-Baird cuts to TAFE and education, and how they are hurting their families and limiting opportunities for Newcastle children.
In health, the Abbott Liberal government has cut more than $150 million from Hunter New England Health over the next four years and another $2 billion earmarked to be cut over the next decade.
Rather than ignore the federal funding cuts, the New South Wales Premier should be standing up to his best mate, the Prime Minister, and demanding a better deal for Newcastle and New South Wales. Labor has got a robust progressive plan for Newcastle and New South Wales. (Time expired)
I rise to commend the New South Wales Liberal government for its outstanding commitments for a better future for people on the Central Coast, which is a very strong reason as to why Premier Mike Baird should be re-elected this weekend.
Jobs, growth and opportunity are really important for our region, which is why I so strongly support the federal government's commitment of a new purpose-built ATO centre of excellence for the heart of Gosford—600 new jobs for Gosford. People across the Central Coast, wherever I go, tell me every single day how supportive they are of this initiative. Thanks to Premier Mike Baird, if the coalition is re-elected on Saturday, another 300 positions from the New South Wales Office of Finance and Services will also some to Gosford over the next four years. This means nearly 1,000 new jobs for Gosford. I acknowledge and particularly thank Chris Holstein, the Liberal member for Gosford and the Minister for the Central Coast, Rob Stokes, for their tireless advocacy on this issue.
After 16 years of neglect of the Central Coast under the former Labor government, this is a massive boost to jobs, growth and skills that our region desperately needs. It will also help to revitalise Gosford along with other initiatives such as rezoning and reinvigorating the waterfront and a proposal for a performing arts centre. Premier Baird and the member for Gosford, Chris Holstein, have announced a $12 million commitment towards the performing arts centre and conservatorium. It is not just Gosford that is seeing new jobs; Reinforced Concrete Pipes Australia has recently announced that it would locate its $15 million facility at Somersby—creating another 30 jobs or more. Overall, I am advised that over the past four years more than 11,000 jobs have been created on the Central Coast as a result of the New South Wales Liberal government's policies.
This is a game changer for our region, but we simply cannot take it for granted. The future of the Central Coast is too important, and it has been neglected by Labor for too long. You can see this neglect when you drive across our roads on the Central Coast, which is why the New South Wales Liberal government is investing $400 million to boost roads across our region. This includes $126 million to duplicate the Pacific Highway at Lisarow and $100 million to upgrade the Pacific Highway at Ourimbah.
Following consultation with the community there is $174 million to be allocated to projects which could benefit other Central Coast growth road projects such as Manns Road from West Gosford to Narara and Terrigal Drive from Erina to Terrigal. A further $5.5 million will also be invested to tackle congestion and improve safety on Central Coast roads, including $2 million to undertake safety improvements on Brisbane Water Drive at Point Clare. There is also $1 million to ease congestion and improve traffic flow at the busy roundabout where Empire Bay Drive meets The Scenic Road at Kincumber. I really want to pay tribute to our Liberal candidate for Terrigal, Adam Crouch, for his tireless advocacy on this issue. The state Liberal government is also delivering on the $170 million upgrade for the intersection at West Gosford, which will improve traffic flow, travel times and safety for all road users and deliver a vital boost to our local small businesses.
The Baird Liberal government is also pledging a massive $368 million towards the redevelopment of Gosford Hospital and $200 million to upgrade Wyong Hospital. This will give Gosford Hospital, in my electorate, a new emergency department, a new intensive care unit, an expanded high dependency unit and a range of other additional services and facilities, including more inpatient beds for acute and subacute services and, very importantly, extra car parking. This upgrade also includes the potential for a Central Coast medical school. I again welcome the state Liberal government's support for this project which, while in its early stages, could see a globally connected, fully integrated Central Coast health and medical research institute at some stage in the future. This is a unique opportunity to deliver a shared vision for a university in Gosford that will be a world-class centre of excellent which delivers more aspiration, more growth and more opportunity.
There is $345,000 for Central Coast Surf Life Saving for rescue drones, digital radios, portable PA systems and a community education program. As a surf lifesaver, I know the importance of this particular announcement. This will benefit surf lifesaving clubs in my electorate at Avoca Beach, Umina Beach, Ocean Beach, Killcare, McMasters Beach, Copacabana, North Avoca and Terrigal.
The state government is also upgrading Gosford and Terrigal high schools as part of state-wide funding adding up to almost $150 million. And today the Premier visited Lifeline Central Coast to announce $10.5 million to help ensure that people across the state can continue to access vital counselling services around the clock. This is a government that deserves to be re-elected on Saturday. (Time Expired)
I want to advocate on behalf of a GP in my area, Dr Stephen Wilson. Stephen has been running a medical practice in the area of Bassendean for some 32 years. He is incredibly committed to his area. He is certainly not a man who delivers six-minute medicine. In fact, Stephen averages only four patients an hour because of his commitment to quality care. He delivers after-hours care and is totally committed to his patients. The practice that he runs is 70 per cent bulk-billing. On top of that, an additional 15 per cent of his patients have heavily discounted fees. Because this practice is not a big income generator, he is simply unable to compete for doctors with more lucrative practices. So for the past 14 years they have not had a female GP in the area and he has struggled to get more than 10 hours of assistance from other GPs in this area.
The state medical bureaucracy is heavily behind Stephen. Today I have spoken to the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health in WA. As far as he is concerned, Stephen satisfies all the requirements of being in area of unmet need, and he knows that Stephen has been applying unsuccessfully for assistance. Unfortunately, we are not receiving assistance from the Commonwealth. I have tried to take this matter up with the relevant Assistant Minister for Health. Let me give you some idea of the statistics. In the area of Bassendean the ration of GPs to population is one to 4,800. That compares with the WA average of one to 1,500 and the Australia-wide average of one to 1,277. We have a very dire situation here in the town of Bassendean and covering Ashfield and Eden Hill.
The Medicare Local has explained at great length the real problem that we have here. They have done a detailed assessment of this area and they have found that its health needs are well beyond those of the average area. For some time, and despite the best endeavours, there has been limited access to general practitioner provision. The stats show that they have a significantly lower use of healthcare centres than the metropolitan state average, an increased rate of accidental falls in children and a very high rate of diabetes, stroke, arthritis, heart disease and asthma—all much higher than state average.
We have got a situation here, so I beg the government and the Assistant Minister for Health to make some practical moves. This is not considered to be an area of workplace shortage, notwithstanding the clear facts that it is. Just across the river the area of Midland, which is also within the Perth metropolitan area, is acknowledged to be an area of workplace shortage. I ask the minister to deeply consider this case and the plight of Dr Wilson, and to give approval for him to bring in a GP he has found from the Republic of Ireland. I think it would be a great win-win for our community and for the minister.
The issue of mental health has touched the lives of so many that it is important to see the work that is being done by both our professionals and our extraordinary volunteers. Last Sunday, Paul Gaffney, known as Gaff or Gaffa to his mates, was rewarded with a successful outcome for one year's effort. Twelve months ago, Paul decided to coordinate a Black Dog Day ride to raise money for Lifeline and raise awareness in the community. He has worked continuously and despite overcast weather, the Black 'Dogger' rode along with another 200 bikers. The group raised over $11,000 and most of that will be donated to Lifeline. Paul organised a gathering of different motorbike clubs and harnessed sponsorship from Jason at John Hills Signs, Wayne of Nowra Fujitsu and Manildra. You cannot imagine how truly startling it was to see all those riders travelling for a good cause down the Princes Highway.
Mental health is recognised as a significant community issue on so many levels and a large number of our local services and providers are stretched well beyond the demand, but they are working very hard. Recently, I attended a Woman's Day award event at Meroogal House, where Elizabeth Langdon was awarded for her involvement in the Nowra Youth Food Garden, which is located at the headspace facility and operated under the guidance of Jo Allsopp. This particular headspace is fabulous.
We also have the Shoalhaven Suicide Prevention and Awareness Network, SSPAN, working very effectively under the guiding hand of Wendi Hobbs. They have recently received sponsorship from Kinghorn Ford Nowra. This sponsorship will support workshops on youth mental health literacy and finding help, which will delivered to our schools. Also, SSPAN has developed the blue card, which is the size of a business card and has on one side the message, 'It's okay to ask for help' with examples of people who can receive a blue card and the bottom line says, 'I need to use my blue card.' On the reverse side, there are three instructions: stay with the person; listen, really listen; get or call for help from Lifeline, 131114, or a suicide call-back service or even triple 0.
Operation blue card is similar to programs that exist internationally and it aims to assist and promote young people seeking help in times of need. It is provided free in our region, thanks to a partnership with the south Nowra Rotary Club. The program is in trial phase with a distribution of 20,000 cards to youth centres, mental health facilities, emergency departments, police, crisis accommodation, schools and local businesses.
There was a time when people with a mental illness were shunned or locked away. Society has certainly evolved to show more acceptance and a greater level of more compassion for those who are going through such episodes in their lives. At a recent gathering to raise awareness, Jon Strang, chair of the Shoalhaven Mental Health Fellowship and consumer advocate, said, 'There are few people in our community who do not have a lived experience of mental illness or at least know someone living with a mental illness.' The Gilmore community is raising awareness, fundraising for services and providing assistance to those with a mental illness.
There is another community sector that is also being recognised as in need of assistance—that is, the service men and women in our defence forces who have experienced trauma and need help. The coalition accept this and are delivering steady and effective help. Last year, we announced a policy for uncapped funding for counselling and mental health services for them. This week, we announced the next initiative to assist past and current military personnel—a mental health app. It was launched by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Ronaldson, and the Assistant Minister for Defence, Stuart Robert.
This new mobile phone app is designed to help serving and ex-ADF personnel to manage stress and build psychological resilience. It will be available for them to download for free from an IOS app store and android Google Play. This high-res app is part of my government's approach to improve mental health outcomes for defence and younger veterans, to recognise their unique military service and to help every single one of them to achieve a better state. We all know what post-traumatic stress disorder is doing to our veterans and we have to offer every avenue of possible assistance.
Every single individual can help with the mental health of those around them. Be a good listener. Show that you care. Seek trained guidance to help them or get help for yourself to help them. If you see a friend, whether it be at school or in your community, constantly on their own, talk to them and ask them how they are. For some, that simple act of kindness could make all the difference to their mental health.
It is with great sadness that I rise again today to speak about an issue that has sent shock waves through the Canberra community—that is, domestic violence. In a matter of weeks, we have had three deaths allegedly linked to family violence, and the death that has really mobilised the Canberra community has been the tragic death of Tara Costigan. I spoke in the House about Tara Costigan a few weeks ago, but I speak again today because it is still an issue that is front and centre for many Canberrans. A few weeks ago, I held a mobile office in the Woden town centre. I assumed I would be inundated with people wanting to talk to me about Public Service job cuts and other issues related to what was happening in Woden. But, instead, the main issue of discussion with constituents was the sadness, the distress and the concern that is being felt by the Canberra community about what happened to Tara, and the fact that domestic violence seems to be so prevalent in Canberra.
As we know, one in every three women have been a victim of domestic violence and family violence. In a way, Canberra has seen the reality of that statistic in recent weeks. In the mobile office, it was front and centre of the discussions. And I just heard today of an event that one of my media advisers went to and again it was a central conversation there. It is still causing great distress and causing people to burst into tears, such is the horror and shock about what is happening as a result of domestic violence.
Deputy Speaker, you will recall that Tara was murdered in her home in Tuggeranong at the start of March. She was just 28 years old. Just a week before Tara was killed, she gave birth to a daughter. It is just shocking. That daughter and her two other children, aged nine and 11, have been left without their mum. The 40-year-old man who has been charged with Tara's murder was her former partner.
It is believed that Tara sought court protection from her ex-partner a day before she was violently killed. The interim domestic violence order was granted by the magistrate, but it is unclear whether the man was served with the order by police. What is clear for all to see is that Tara Costigan was a victim of domestic violence. Family violence is the leading cause of injury and death in Australian women under 45 years, and more than two women are murdered by an intimate partner every single week. It happens everywhere, every day, and affects women of every age, income, postcode, religion and race. It is a problem of epidemic proportions, and it is about gender equality. This issue is about empowering women. If I can steal the words of our leader, Bill Shorten, 'Gender equality is not a women's issue, it's a humans rights issue.'
Just as Canberrans have come together to support the children of Tara Costigan, we need to come together to take action against this scourge in our society, and deep-rooted cultural problem. Action begins with talking about the issue and calling it out for what it is. This can be difficult because often women are experiencing physical, emotional or economic violence at the hands of someone they love.
Action means raising the issue with our family and friends, in our schools, in our workplaces, at our local footy clubs and walking groups, and speaking out when we see it. It means strong leadership from all of us here, from the community, from business and sporting leaders, and policymakers. It means closely listening to our Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, when she tells women experiencing family violence to seek help, and tells us all to better understand the services that are available to support these women.
Action means commending the organisations who have signed up to the White Ribbon Workplace Accreditation Pilot Project, including Navy and Army. It means adopting a zero-tolerance approach and having the courage to act when we see it. It means remembering that only weak men hit women, and it means providing funding to legal, housing, health and child protection services, police, justice and the courts, to ensure that every part of our community is working to end violence against women.
Tara Costigan's death has reminded us all that we must tackle family violence and that we must tackle it now. I applaud the Leader of the Opposition for taking such a strong lead on this in calling for a national summit, and I want to commend the Canberra community for their overwhelming support for Tara Costigan and her family. On the weekend, thousands turned out to attend a walk in support of Tara. I thank Canberrans for sending a very strong message: that we are here to support Tara's family and friends, and that we have zero tolerance for family violence.
This is the third time this month I have chosen to speak about the Abbott and Baird governments' historic infrastructure investment in Western and South-Western Sydney. Unfortunately for those opposite, for as long as I am fortunate enough to represent the good people of Macarthur I will continue to highlight the great work that the Commonwealth and New South Wales state governments are undertaking.
I say 'unfortunately for those opposite' because coalition's unprecedented infrastructure investment in South-West Sydney and Western Sydney highlights the years and years of Labor neglect in the community, at both the state and federal levels. Having been a member of parliament during the final desperate term of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, I have had the misfortune of witnessing firsthand the destructiveness of a Labor government in power, but equally I have had the good fortune of seeing that very same government booted out by the Australian public at the last election.
But we should not feel sorry for those opposite, not at all, because, as the saying goes, 'If you don't invest very much, then defeat doesn't hurt very much.' And Labor did not invest a penny in South-Western Sydney, so their resounding defeat in the 2013 election should not have hurt at all. Labor should have seen it coming, and I have no doubt that they did but chose to do nothing about it.
In 2012, I distributed Macarthur's biggest survey to every household in my electorate and received a great response from many families, seniors and small businesses in the electorate. From the many responses to this survey it was overwhelmingly clear that my community was deeply concerned about two major issues: No. 1 is the carbon tax and No. 2 is the need for better infrastructure.
My community knew that Labor were not only responsible for their concerns, but that they were also an impediment to any change and that the only solution was to boot them out and put in a government that is willing to listen to and adhere to their wishes.
The Abbott government understands that the problems are not stop signs, they are guidelines. We have proved this firstly by removing the carbon tax, saving households in my community and across the country $515 last year alone, and, in partnership with the New South Wales government, we announced a 10-year road investment program of over $3 billion for Western Sydney, providing the vital infrastructure that my community has been calling out for for years under Labor. Work has already begun on the $500 million Bringelly Road upgrade, which will be one of the principal road links within the South West Grove centre, improving access to the new Leppington railway station and the M5 and M7 motorways.
I am pleased to announce to the House that I met this morning with the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon. Jamie Briggs, who confirmed that work would begin later this year, as planned, on the $1.6 billion upgrade of the Northern Road, taking it from two lanes to a four-lane divided road along its 31-kilometre length.
The Abbott and Baird governments are also funding the construction of a $1.25 billion new four-lane motorway, that will form the main east-west connection between the M7 Motorway and the Northern Road. The $3.5 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan also includes a $200 million package for upgrades to local roads.
We are investing $140 million in upgrading Narellan Road and $280 million on Camden Valley Way.
In addition to the $3.5 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan, Macarthur will benefit from the construction of the $3 billion WestConnex, which will include the widening of the M4 and the duplication of the M5 East, significantly improving commuting times for those travelling from Macarthur into the city for work.
Collectively, WestConnex and the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan will create over 14,000 jobs, offering perhaps the most significant economic opportunity ever seen in Western and South-Western Sydney. I am extremely proud of that fact. As a government, we are creating more jobs and opportunities for young people and we are clearly on the right path.
Thanks to this historic infrastructure investment, communities across the region have a bright future. On that subject, I would like to turn to Luke Foley's campaign against the Baird government's plans to lease poles and wires in New South Wales. Not only has Labor's campaign got an ugly xenophobic undertone to it, they are essentially campaigning to restrict the New South Wales government from the funding it needs to work with the Commonwealth in delivering on our plan to build the infrastructure of the 21st century to grow the economy.
This morning, Luke Foley had the gall to visit Campbelltown Hospital to promise $100 million for a paediatric surgery centre. Mike Baird has already invested over $300 million in the Campbelltown Hospital. Labor promised that for 16 years and never delivered.
I have heard it all before. When they were in government, for 16 years, they promised countless times to provide the necessary funding and they failed to deliver. The Labor government will never change: a leopard never changes its spots.
I have to agree with the New South Wales Minister for Health, Jillian Skinner, who this morning stated that Labor's last-minute laundry list of hospital re-announcements shows that nothing has changed in its 16 years of health neglect. It is groundhog day. Sadly we have seen it and heard it all before from Labor's conga line of health ministers and spokespeople. Campbelltown, Blacktown, Wagga Wagga, Tamworth, Dubbo, Lismore—all these hospital upgrades were promised for decades under Labor, and what happened? Zilch. Nothing—exactly right. You cannot trust Labor. The one thing you can say is that they will say and do anything to get into office.
Order. It being 5 pm the debate is interrupted and the House stands adjourned.
House adjourned at 17:00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:30.
I rise to pay tribute to Melton South Primary School and its vibrant community of students, teachers and families. Established more than 90 years ago, Melton South Primary School has enjoyed a proud tradition of serving our local community since 1923. On Tuesday, 11 November last year—Remembrance Day—I was invited by Melton South Primary School to address its grade 5 and 6 students and to reflect upon my duties as a federal member of parliament. It was a valuable morning with a lively discussion and some very shrewd questions and insightful comments. I do find sometimes that students can have a way of exposing you to questions and disarming you in a way that the gallery in Canberra sometimes fails to do. It was a great morning. The students were enthusiastic and I really enjoyed my time there.
The grade 5 and 6 students were keen to learn more about what it means to be an effective, contributing citizen both locally and in our country at large ahead of their school camp trip to the nation's capital. I hope they found the discussion edifying. For my part, I can say that I certainly relish the opportunity to participate in these sorts of visits. Indeed, visiting schools and meeting students are amongst the most worthwhile and rewarding things one can do as a parliamentarian, whatever your political persuasion. Indeed, when I do visit my local schools and I speak with the principals I say, 'I go there on one condition: I want to speak with students, not just teachers and not just principals.' I always like to spend time with students. And whether they be in the younger years, or the later years, I always find it instructive and inspiring. I also hope I can lend my experience to them as to what it means to represent their constituency. It is a great experience all round.
I would like also to take this opportunity to acknowledge the principal, Mrs Marilyn Costigan. The relationship between the Melton South Primary School community and I extends back to the time when I was first elected in 2001, as the member for Burke. Back in 2002, I recall addressing a group of Melton south students in the hospitality area of Parliament House. More than a decade later, I am pleased that our ongoing association continues. My message to the students remains the same. To the students of Melton South Primary School past and present, and to other students in the electorate of Gorton, I say this to you: with hard work and commitment you can achieve anything to which you set your mind. The sky is your limit. I thank Melton South Primary School again for the invitation, and look forward to seeing its students and paying the school another visit sometime in the near future.
I rise today to congratulate all the various show societies that have functioned, in many cases for over 100 years, within the Lyne electorate. I particularly want to bring to the attention of the House that this weekend the Camden Haven Show Society—under the guidance of Ron Porter, President, and Mavis Barnes, Secretary, and all the committee—are putting on a minishow this weekend, because they had to cope with a category 3 cyclone, the tail of which washed out their show earlier in the year.
Earlier this year, I attended the Comboyne show, which was very well attended and suffered from an outbreak of extremely good weather and huge crowds. I want to compliment Rodney and Sue Fisher, Marion Ricketts and all the committee on a very successful day. Many people helped them—Kevin Debreceny and many others—too many to mention in this short time. This weekend coming up we have the 105th Wauchope Show—my local town's show. I am sure Bob Kennett, Neil Coombes, Paul Hoole, Jennifer Markham, Anne Watkins and all the many directors will have another great show. I attended the Gloucester Show on the weekend. We had a bit of drizzle again, but the show did go on. I would like to compliment Howard Shultz, James Hooke, Susan Harris, John Ralf, the ring masters, and all the other people for a great show.
The show society itself is a great institution in rural Australia. Even in Sydney we have the Royal Easter Show, but it all starts out in rural Australia where people come together. It is a case of people being unselfish and willing to commit their time and energy. We have a celebration of everything rural—whether you are demonstrating your prize beef, dairy, horses, dogs, poultry, wildlife or all the craft—and there is an amazing collection of things to see at a show. There are altogether too many people to thank. In essence, if anyone travels to any agricultural show in the Lyne electorate they are guaranteed to visit a great event. Next door in Kempsey, which is just out of my electorate, we have the Kempsey Show coming up in the coming weeks as well. I am sure all the shows will be well attended and certainly they are appreciated by the community that they serve. I compliment them all and wish them well for the future.
Next month, our nation will come together to commemorate the Anzac Centenary. Anzac Day 2015 marks 100 years since the Gallipoli landings. It is our nation's annual commemorative day for acknowledging and remembering those who served not only in the First World War but also in conflicts and operations throughout the last century and into this century as well. In my federal electorate of Holt, we will be encouraging individuals and families to become involved in the Anzac Centenary and attend the major commemorations that occur on that day, which are generally held in Cranbourne, Endeavour Hills and Berwick.
I am very pleased to tell this chamber that many local schools in my constituency—such as Fountain Gate Secondary College and Alkira Secondary College—and local sporting and community groups will also conduct their own Anzac Day Centenary commemorations around the City of Casey. In the lead-up to the Anzac Centenary, I would like to commend the Australian government on its Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program that assists and encourages communities across Australia to undertake their own Anzac Centenary projects.
In Holt, five Anzac Centenary grant applications have so far been approved. Saffron Grove retirement village was awarded $814 for the installation of a flagpole for use at Anzac Day and Remembrance Day commemorative ceremonies. Even that small amount has made a substantial difference to the life of that home and that community. The Cranbourne combined patchworkers were awarded $3,420 to create a Cranbourne Anzac Centenary triptych. The Provenance Artists Inc. were awarded $22,605 to hold an Anzac Centenary arts exhibition from 3 to 5 July 2015. There will be more than 30 artists participating and displaying commemorative paintings at the Mechanics' Institute hall on Webb Street, Narre Warren. Alkira Secondary College was awarded $8,135 to install an avenue of memorial trees and establish an artefact display in the library at the college in commemoration of the First World War. And the Hampton Park Progress Association were awarded $17,510 to construct a garden, a mural and a memorial, which will be a cenotaph, as part of a brand new Hampton Park Anzac memorial.
Each of these projects benefit the local community, and, importantly, they honour the Anzac Centenary in a respectful manner. I also wish to thank all the members of the Holt Anzac Centenary Grants Committee that played a role in selecting these projects for funding, namely: Leanne Petrides, Erica Maliki, Barry Rogers—from the local Cranbourne RSL—Judy Owen and Ben Hill. The Anzac Centenary is a historic event for our nation. I am very pleased to see it commemorated in these ways on this very important day to our country.
It always gives me great pleasure to rise in this place and share some positive news about the good people of the electorate of Forde. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of local business owners who are passionate about giving back to our local community. Garry and Sharon Sibthorpe, who are the owners of the Battery World store in Beenleigh, were recently recognised for their dedication to our community when they beat 82 stores to win the community engagement award at the company's annual national conference in March this year. Some of the things they have been able to donate back to the community include batteries for the Volunteer Marine Rescue Service, money to support chaplains in our local schools and sponsorship of the Wednesday Beenleigh bowls club competition.
I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of one of our local day care centres that recently made the headlines for their action against childhood obesity. The Hyperdome early education centre have hired a personal trainer as well as a chef to teach children about the benefits of a healthy lifestyle. I would like to congratulate the centre director, Michelle Clarke, and her team for promoting positive and healthy habits within the centre and I wish their chef, Shannon Griffin, and trainer, Kenneth Wood, all the best in their new roles. I look forward to popping into the centre in the near future to check out for myself how the 'healthspiration' program is going.
We recently had the wonderful Mayor of Logan City Council, Pam Parker, announce she would not be contesting the next local government election. Mayor Parker has the upmost respect from members within the Logan community. She has been a mayor of the people and is popular amongst many. Mayor Parker has been a tireless advocate for the Logan community and I wish her all the best in the next chapter of her life. She will be sadly missed in our community.
It is always wonderful to acknowledge some of the local sporting talent we have in the electorate of Forde and we have a never-ending list of great sports achievers. Today I would like to acknowledge three Canterbury College students. Fourteen-year-old Keely Stewart claimed three long-standing records for the 50-metre freestyle, the 50-metre breaststroke and the 50-metre butterfly races at the Pacific Rim District Swimming Championships earlier this year. Her teammate, 17-year-old Ashleigh Holmes, broke two records in the 50-metre backstroke and 50-metre butterfly events. Tayla Raines broke the girls' 16 years 50-metre breaststroke record. Thirty-four students from Canterbury College competed against 18 schools in the district and 27 students went on to the south coast regional swimming championships. Well done to everyone involved, particularly to the parents who dedicate themselves to ensuring their children are given the support they need in order to compete at their best.
On Saturday, there is a state election in New South Wales and the people of the Shortland electorate have the opportunity to vote to return a Labor government to power in New South Wales. In the Shortland electorate, we have had quite an experience with Liberal Party members of parliament. Three Liberals were elected at the last state election. One had to resign because he took money in a brown paper bag from a developer. The other two have had to move to the crossbenches because of their association with developers. The people of the Shortland electorate know they can trust Labor. They know that their Labor representatives have always been honest. There has never been a whiff of corruption about the Labor members in the Shortland electorate. But, unfortunately, the three Liberal Party state members have all made appearances at ICAC. I find that very disturbing and so do the people of the Hunter and the Central Coast.
In addition to the fact that we have had big problems with the Liberal Party members within the Shortland electorate and the three state electorates of Swansea, Charlestown and Wyong, the Baird government is going to sell off electricity, the poles and wires, in New South Wales. The people of the Hunter and the Central Coast do not want that. They know that they were promised that electricity prices would go down. But under the Baird Liberal government, and I might say under the O'Farrell Liberal government, electricity prices have only gone one way, and that is up. I cannot be convinced, nor can the voters in Swansea, Charlestown and Wyong, that by selling off electricity poles and wires that electricity prices will go down.
In addition to that, we have seen Mike Baird siding with Tony Abbott, refusing to speak out against money being ripped out of hospitals in New South Wales. We have seen Mike Baird being very quiet about the schoolkids bonus being removed from families in the Shortland electorate and throughout New South Wales. And we have seen the Baird Liberal government failing time and time again to stand up against the excesses of the Abbott government here in Canberra. It is not good enough. The people of New South Wales deserve a good, decent, honest government.
The forests and forest product industry gala dinner in the timber-clad Great Hall, the people's hall, was a wonderful event last night. It was attended by the Prime Minister, who told the foresters—mind you, there was not a Green to be seen—'You are a splendid industry. We want to ensure you have a bright future. You are the original conservationists.'
A discussion paper was launched, with feedback to be sought over the next 10 weeks, on the fantastic future of the forestry industry. It was launched by Senator Richard Colbeck, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, who said that a well-managed forest will store more carbon than one left to its own devices, and we all know that.
The extensive plantation pine forests of the Riverina and Murray Valley, particularly around Tumut and Tumbarumba shires, strategically developed since the 1970s, have underpinned an unprecedented amount of investment in value adding and job creation in the region. Major world-scale sawmills, forestry companies and paper producers now call the region home.
For example, Visy Industries, a 60-plus-year-old, 100 per cent Australian company, developed a state of the art pulp and paper mill near Tumut in 2000, with an initial investment of around $450 million. Since then, with several stages of additional development, the company has spent a total of more than $1 billion—a billion dollars—in private capital there. I understand that, right now, that record of investment is continuing, with further mill enhancements of around $40 million currently in the pipeline. That is tremendous news for the Riverina.
This amazing regional development project has generated more than 900 jobs in the region, a third of them inside the plant and the remainder working in the plantation forests, transport and other services. The mill itself is acknowledged as a world leader in process, technology and environmental performance in things such as renewable energy, water efficiency and low emissions. Few people realise that this plant is one of the largest exporters of containerised manufactured product in the whole of Australia. It produces reels of high quality industrial paper for markets in Asia, the Americas and Europe as well as Africa.
This mill facility is one example of the huge job and investment benefits that flow from the long-term plantation forestry investment in my region. Australia's total employment in the forestry sector—forestry, wood, pulp and paper manufacturing—in 2013-14 was 70,500. This is an increase of almost 10,000 jobs since the coalition won government in 2013, and a sign that the industry is recovering from mismanagement under the previous Labor government. The volume of logs harvested in Australia in 2013-14 was estimated at around 25.4 million cubic metres. Of this, 11.1 million cubic meters were harvested from hardwood forests and 14.3 million cubic metres from softwood forest. In Tumut and Tumbarumba shires, their gross regional product is dependent on forestry, and may that long continue.
I want to talk about the fantastic diversity of the events that have been occurring across my electorate, where, on the same weekend, you can take part in a tractor pull, take pride in a pride march, or see the unveiling of a giant Lego sculpture. Nothing more brilliantly displays the wonderful diversity of the Ballarat region than the Labour Day weekend.
I spent my Sunday morning at Daylesford's ChillOut Festival before heading to the Bullarto tractor pull. From a vibrant, colourful celebration of our gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex community, to a rural community day for steam and petrol engine enthusiasts—you could not have got a better example of the range of communities that make up my electorate. They really are a fantastic part of our community.
On that same weekend I was at the Ballarat Begonia Festival, one of the biggest events of the year in the region, organised by the City of Ballarat. We saw a weekend of celebration, with parades, treasure hunts, art displays, rope mazes, and the centrepiece—a two-metre-high Lego begonia in sunset colours.
The Ballan Autumn Festival does not get as much publicity, of course, as the begonia festival, but when their parade ran through town last weekend you could not move for the crowd. The region turned out in force for a wonderful day of music, food and local stalls of all kinds. Even the locally focused events draw a crowd from around the state. They are terrific events, which give much to the economic development of our community and provide an opportunity for people to celebrate the culture of our local area.
Of course, Ballarat's focus is now turning towards Anzac Day and the special significance of the centenary of the Gallipoli landings. Just last week in this House we were visited by year 9 and 10 students as recipients of and runners up in the Simpson Prize. I was very proud to meet with one of these talented young Australians, Madelyn Rothe, who is a student from Loreto College, just up the road from my electorate office. Her work, considering the reasons why Australians enlisted to fight in 1914, saw her as one of only 16 students brought to Canberra from around the country.
Ballarat has been preparing for Anzac Day with energy, as we have seen revitalised RSLs, avenues of honour, and events like Creswick 1915. Creswick RSL have made a real effort to get the entire community involved, and on Anzac Day you will see the entire town turn back the clock to 1915, with the town done up in that style and fields of crosses—a great community commemoration.
It is important, of course, to see Anzac events like this as part of a larger whole, as around the country we remember the great sacrifice of those who came before us. It is the details of the quiet work of Ballarat residents contributing to this wonderfully diverse community that is what matters—at the heart of our community, hundreds of volunteers are working not just across the Anzac Day events but also across all of these fantastic community events. I want to thank all of those people for the terrific work they do in my community every day of the year.
Lions Clubs throughout Australia have a very proud history of achievement in disaster and emergency relief, medical research and community service. They were at the coalface of Cyclone Tracy, the Black Saturday bushfires and the Queensland floods. Lions were also involved with the development of the bionic ear and the cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil. They also work to provide funding for a range of other research initiatives involving diabetes and autism. Lions assist with local community fundraising for special causes and help with the development and building of local parks, community venues and sporting centres.
Today, I would like to acknowledge the Tuggerah Shores Lions Club—of which I am proud to be a lioness—who have a very special fundraising project named Elsie's Dream. Elsie's Dream is a vision about building a hospice village for the Central Coast's terminally ill. The project is the dream of lioness Oana McBride who lost her close friend Elsie to cancer. The members of Tuggerah Shores Lions Club want to make sure that people, particularly young people, have the option to die with dignity surrounded by friends and family in a caring environment, and the Tuggerah Shores Lions Club recently held a successful fundraising event at the Wyong Race Club that was supported by many local businesses.
It is believed that around 70 per cent of Australians want to die at home, but only 16 per cent actually do so. People in regional areas, such as the Central Coast, and rural areas are particularly disadvantaged when it comes to palliative care services. Many people do not have a choice when it comes to where they will die. And while home is best it is not always an option.
Elsie's village hospice will provide choice for those facing this situation. The hospice village will consist of six specially built cottages, with an administration block, communal hall, swimming pool, children's playground and sensory garden. These will be private cottages where family and friends can be with their loved ones and stay and care for them. They will have a laundry, and kitchen facilities, so that families can cook and eat together just as they would do at home. The layout of the hospice will be that of a village. Each cottage is stand-alone and will look out on a communal garden, swimming pool and children's playground. The sensory garden and barbeque areas will feature special purpose-built paths to accommodate beds and wheelchair access.
Families will still be the predominant carers. Patients will have access to palliative care nurses, with their own doctors visiting the hospice as they would do at home. Referrals to the hospice will be made by hospitals, GPs or other healthcare services helping the terminally ill. This hospice village will provide families the opportunity of spending precious time with their loved ones in a home-like environment. This facility has the capacity to change lives for many and to provide greater choice in the way a terminally ill patient spends their final days, as well as making memories of good times to be remembered forever.
I support Elsie's Dream and encourage the local community to lend their support to this vision, and to support the Tuggerah Shores Lions Club in this worthwhile and much-needed facility for the Central Coast.
My electorate of Fremantle is named for the city at the Swan River mouth, a place known as Walyalup to the Whadjuk Nyungar people, who are the traditional owners of the land. It has always been a meeting and gathering place, and a place of trade and important stories.
I want to draw attention to a recent initiative in Fremantle that involved young Aboriginal people and occurred through funding support from the WA Commissioner for Children and Young People. Within a program designed to engage kids and teenagers on their thoughts about the future, a City of Fremantle initiative resulted in students from Winterfold Primary School and South Fremantle Senior High School collaborating on the production of a music video for a song called Keep it Real. It is a lovely piece of work. In it you can see the community-building and confidence-building that results from giving young people, and especially young Aboriginal people, the opportunity to talk about their lives and challenges and hopes for the future.
Unfortunately, while there are positive local efforts like this one, there are, at the same time, a number of much more significant moves in the wrong direction. I am extremely concerned by proposed WA and federal government action in three areas. The first is the proposal to close more than 100 remote communities as a consequence of the federal government's withdrawal of funding. Enough has probably been said about the Prime Minister's profoundly offensive statement to the effect that living in such communities is a 'lifestyle choice', but perhaps not enough about the deep misunderstanding that must lie beneath such a statement.
Fred Chaney's plea to the Prime Minister on this issue bears repeating:
Please Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs, don't repeat the brutal mistakes of the past when people were kicked out of their remote communities and left to rot on the edge of towns.
Listen to the many voices including that of your chosen adviser, Warren Mundine, reminding you of what you know, that Aboriginal people have a deep relationship with country that is central to their lives. Remember that many Aboriginal families in remote communities lead healthier and more peaceful lives away from disorganised larger centres.
The second matter of concern is a set of proposed amendments to the Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, which is designed to fast-track approval processes and which concentrate decision-making with the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. On this issue I can only agree with the WA Law Society and WA Anthropological Society criticisms that the proposed amendments strip the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee of its evaluative role and shift power to the CEO, who is not obliged to consult with Aboriginal people or to apply anthropological expertise.
The final area of concern is the Abbott government's intention to cut funding for community legal services across the country, including the support that is currently received by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, or ATSILS, and its peak body NATSILS. How can we as a nation claim to be serious about justice and fairness when the government is taking away the supportive framework that provides access to our legal system for disadvantaged and disenfranchised Australians?
In what has to be a sustained nationwide effort at every level to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians we cannot have backwards steps and funding cuts and closed doors, and we cannot have the disrespecting of the rights and culture of Aboriginal people.
It was not that long ago that physical activity and exercise were something no Australian lived without. We were outdoor people. We spoke to our neighbours across the fence while our children played cricket on the street and climbed trees. We went to parks or beaches on the weekend, a great way of getting out of the house without spending any money. But since the rise of technology and longer working hours, our lives have become a lot more sedentary.
I attended the Heart Foundation event yesterday with Assistant Minister for Health Fiona Nash. The theme for the day was 'move more, sit less'. It noted that adults who sit less during the day lower their risk of an early death. So 'move more, sit less' is an important theme as it encourages us to think about how we actually spend our days. We can all do simple things to increase our physical activity, like taking the stairs instead of the lift.
Two out of three adults and one in four children in Australia are either overweight or obese. It is estimated that physical inactivity costs our health system about $1.5 billion in avoidable costs. According to the Australian Health Survey, only one in three children and one in 10 young people do the 60 minutes of physical activity a day that is recommended.
The coalition government has a strong plan to get our young people involved in sport as a step towards a healthier future. Yesterday, Minister for Sport the Hon. Sussan Ley launched Play Sport Australia, the government's new scheme for improving participation in organised sport. The national strategy focuses on three key areas: better research, better targeting of investment in youth programs, and strengthening Australia's national sporting organisations.
Currently, only a quarter of Australians play sport. With 13,000 deaths every year in Australia attributed to physical inactivity, we need to boost participation. In conjunction with Play Sport Australia, the Minister for Sport also announced the Sporting Schools program, the coalition government's $100 million junior participation program for children aged five to 12. This will give Australian children access to sport before, during and after school hours. There are 32 programs developed by national sporting organisations. The program also links schools to local sporting clubs—another benefit for the community.
Sport is good not only for physical health but also for mental wellbeing. Encouraging young children to get involved in sport not only sets them up for a healthy life but also teaches them social skills and how to be a team player. These days, with such an increased prevalence of technology, our young people risk missing out on the core values learned by being part of a team and by playing sport. That is why the coalition government is committed to ensuring that all children have more access and encouragement to play sport. This weekend I will be at The Gap Little Athletics, and I thank all the many volunteers who contribute to our children playing sport.
I want to report to the parliament this morning about a great local business in my area. It is called Samaras Restaurant. They have begun a campaign to stamp out racism. This is a family business. It is very well known in our local area and their reputation has spread far and wide for very warm hospitality and absolutely terrific food.
Head Chef, Omar Nemer, posted on the restaurant's Facebook page in early March, and his post was targeted by people posting very negative comments about Muslims and the restaurant. Omar replied to the posts and said:
Can you believe someone would go out of their way to comment on our post and say 'boycott islamic businesses'.
We are a Muslim owned Restaurant, we sell Halal food, we dont sell alcohol or charge for corkage because it is against our religion to make money off something that is not allowed in islam.
Please like this post to show your support for Samaras and for society as a whole as we are all human.
We love the Illawarra and we love living in Australia, the most amazing country in the world.
#illeatwithyou share your love for food smile emoticon because food is what unites this country
Peace.
Omar's post and hashtag drew a huge response, all in support, from locals, people across Australia, and indeed people from around the world. Last Wednesday, the restaurant hosted a lunch and invited people to come along and show their support for the campaign to share peace and harmony through food; and it was a great success.
On the same day, my colleague Stephen Jones and I attended a Harmony Day morning tea here in Parliament House and we shared the event on social media in support of Omar's campaign. Then on Saturday, I joined Omar and his family with a large group of locals, including Omar's local AFL team the University Bulldogs, wearing T-shirts with the hashtag #illeatwithyou, for a live cross for the TODAY show. Omar spoke in moving terms of his great appreciation for the community's outpouring of support for his family and their business and he delivered a strong message of peace and harmony through sharing food and hospitality.
It made me proud of all the members of our local area, including Grahame Gould, who helped Omar with the planning. Grahame heads our Lifeline service. Now they are planning an #illeatwithyou festival at Flagstaff Hill in Wollongong in April, and I have no doubt it will be well supported. I simply could not put it better than Omar himself: 'Reject racism. Share peace and harmony and love through food!' I ask my colleagues as they go to local restaurants to maybe share a photo on social media with the hashtag #illeatwithyou and get behind a wonderful campaign.
Today I rise to speak in support of Gippsland jobs and Australian jobs, particularly those associated with the timber and wood products industry in the electorate of Gippsland. The gross value of forestry and timber products in the wider Gippsland region is $1.2 billion which, of course, incorporates parts of the electorate of McMillian held by Russell Broadbent. It is a major contributor to our local economy. Across Australia there are thousands of jobs associated with forest, wood, paper and timber products in both metropolitan and regional communities.
This week has been a big week for the forestry industry here in parliament. Many of us have taken the opportunity to meet with industry representatives, who are optimistic and enthusiastic about their future. These representatives have been in Canberra meeting with ministers, senators and lower house backbench members to send a clear message that the Australian timber industry is open for business and ready to expand and provide more jobs into the future. This culminated last night with the Innovation in Action industry gala dinner, presented by ForestWorks and Australian Forest Products Association. The evening featured several keynote speakers from the wood products industry and it was well attended by members from both sides of the House.
As the Prime Minister himself said last night, he would like to see the timber industry as a sunrise industry not a sunset industry. I refer to the Prime Minister's comments from last year and I quote:
We want the timber industry to have a vigorous and dynamic future, not just a past. We want the timber industry to be a vital part of Australia's economic future, not just something that was a relic of our history.
I commend the Prime Minister, I commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Richard Colbeck, and the Minister for Agriculture for their work in support of the Australian timber industry.
I had the opportunity last night to sit with representatives of the Latrobe City Council. They were singled out for praise last night as being the first local government in Australia to adopt a Wood Encouragement Policy. That Wood Encouragement Policy means this council knows the importance of the forest and wood products industry to Latrobe Valley and the wider Gippsland region.
I want to speak in relation to one particular business in my electorate, Australian Paper, which is the largest private employer in Gippsland and employs about 1,100 workers. This company produces recycled paper products and has recently invested millions of dollars in a de-inking plant to develop this growing area. The paper that I am reading off here today was made at the Maryvale mill in Gippsland.
I extend a challenge to other members of this place and federal government departments who are using imported paper in their offices. I find it appalling that there is a long list of Australian government departments which do not source their office requisites from Australian made paper. In weeks to come, I will start naming the departments. There is a long list of Australian government departments that continue to use imported paper. I cannot understand how it can even be possible that paper imported to Australia from Germany, Austria or Indonesia could compete with an Australian made product on price, quality or environmental credentials.
This is a very important Australian industry. It is a very important Gippsland industry. I urge all members, senators, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and department staff who may be listening to start supporting Australian jobs and to start purchasing locally made Australian paper.
Last week, the member for Cowan spoke strongly in favour of Australia recognising the Republic of Macedonia by its preferred name. I too understand how strongly Australian Macedonians, and indeed Macedonians, object to the UN naming of Macedonia as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Common sense tells us that we should not continue to burden a country with a name that it hates. I note that the US and the United Kingdom have taken steps to use the title 'Republic of Macedonia' and I would very much like to see a bipartisan approach adopted in Australia in resolving this issue. Personally, I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the House and with the communities to bring forward a resolution.
I acknowledge the excellent advocacy of Vele Trpevski, the ambassador to Australia, and Western Australia's Honorary Consul Zoran Coseski, not just in this matter but also in developing links between Australia and the Republic of Macedonia. The Republic of Macedonia has a strong parliamentary democracy and has been working hard to develop their economy and to deal with the challenges of being a small, landlocked and unaligned nation in a Europe which is contracting, and I strongly support their endeavours to join the European Union.
The Macedonian diaspora is an asset for the republic and Australian Macedonians are using their talents and networks to advance both countries. I want to add that the Macedonian community in Perth are a community of exceptional force and vigour. They have been making an extraordinary contribution to Western Australian life and doing an extraordinary job in keeping their very rich culture alive. I wish them well.
I am still as determined as ever to see the East West Link built in Melbourne and ensure that the contract is honoured. This project was put on the agenda back in 2008 by the then Labor government through the Eddington report. It was supported at the time by Bill Shorten and Julia Gillard. It was planned for by the Baillieu government, who put money towards its planning. The federal government put $1.5 billion on the table after the 2013 election. Then the Napthine government contracted to ensure that it was built. That contract should be honoured, because it would take pressure off the Eastern and take pressure off the Monash Freeway and it would significantly ease congestion across Melbourne.
I would also like to raise two or three other infrastructure projects which I know residents in my community are keen to see developed. One of those is the Rowville rail project, which I have been an advocate for ever since being elected to this parliament. It is a vital piece of infrastructure for residents of the southern half of my electorate, particularly in Rowville and Lysterfield. When it eventually gets built it will link Australia's largest campus, the Monash University campus in Clayton, to the rail network. This is why I have never stopped pushing for this project. I did not stop pushing when the coalition was in government in Spring Street, and I will not stop pushing now that the Andrews government holds power in Spring Street. I appreciate that this is not a straightforward project. Further rail upgrades need to be done before this additional rail capacity can be added, in terms of the Rowville rail project.
Another smaller project which is vitally important to constituents in the seat of Aston covering the Knox area is the Napoleon Road upgrade. It is vitally important and necessary. Many have argued that Police Road should be extended through to Churchill Park Drive to take the pressure off Bergins Road. Also, with the redevelopment of the Knox City shopping centre such that it will soon become the second biggest shopping centre in Australia, I think the issue of the tramline being extended down to it should be back on the agenda; that should be discussed and at least planned for, so that we can see that project come to light at some stage in the near future.
All of these, of course, are so much easier to build when the economy is strong and when we have money in the bank. We know that Labor governments have destroyed the budget and have put us into great debt and that that makes it so much more difficult to build good infrastructure projects, but these are the types of projects that are necessary for the people of the outer east and they certainly are ones that I will be supporting.
I rise today to talk about the National Schools Constitutional Convention, which is happening this week. I had the pleasure of going down to meet the students who are attending the convention. From my electorate, Alex de Lacy from Our Lady of Sion College was, as a beneficiary of her intellect and her drive, one of those chosen for this convention.
The National Schools Constitutional Convention was started as an initiative by the constitutional centenary fund in 1995. It is a three-day convention and approximately 123 senior school students attend. They are mostly selected from feeder conventions conducted by the states and territories. So to get here they have to go through quite a bit of rigour. They will be here representing government, independent and Catholic schools.
The student delegates consider topics which are designed to increase their interest in the operation of the Australian Constitution—something we should all engage in. I do not think we actually engage enough in our Constitution. The topic of the 2015 convention is, 'Checks and balances: do we need an Australian bill of rights?' They will be discussing that and presenting their findings to the President of the Senate at the end of the week.
But the cheeky students asked if I would put them in Hansard, so here goes: Sparsh from Balwyn High School; Lilian from Northcote High School; Isaac from Camberwell Grammar School; Emerson from Ballarat Clarendon College; Alice from Kingswood College, another great school in my electorate; Sarah from MacKillop Catholic Regional College; Alex, as I said, from Our Lady of Sion College; Zakiya from Frankston High School; Rachael from Genazzano FCJ College; Monique from McKinnon Secondary College; Natania from Mount Waverley Secondary College—again, a great school in my electorate; Jasper from Camberwell Grammar School; Amelia from St Catherine's School; Jacob from Wodonga Senior Secondary College; Lucas from John Monash Science School—again, another school in my electorate; Lirim from Lalor Secondary College; Emily from University High School; Valerie from The MacRobertson Girls' High School; Julia from Lalor Secondary College; Charles from Scotch College; Prachi from The Peninsula School; Chloe from Sunbury College; Taylah from Glen Waverley Secondary College; Scott from Mount Clear College; and Michael from Haileybury College.
These are energetic, enthusiastic, intelligent kids. All of them are actually also undertaking year 12. So, at the height of their studies, they found the time to be part of a program to be selected to come to Canberra, and then to do the study and research. It is wonderful to see young people engaging in issues of national concern—looking beyond their own lives, going beyond the Instagram and the everyday and actually tackling these issues. I think these are some of the leaders of the future. But they are also some of the thoughtful people in our community now. We need not underestimate the value of young people and what they bring to our discussions at a society level. Nowadays we talk about them not being engaged, but I defy that. These were a great group of kids, who were enthusiastic, and I hope they had three days of fun in Canberra.
Sport has the power to bring people together. It has the power to teach confidence and it allows people to physically achieve more than, sometimes, they ever thought they possibly could. For those people who are involved in elite sport, and have been involved with it for some time, it also teaches a good work ethic and discipline and rubs off into many other areas of your life.
On Saturday, I had the pleasure of visiting the North Lakes Mustangs Soccer Club, a local sporting club in my electorate. The club was hosting their annual gala day, and it was also hosting the Brisbane Paralympic Football Program's Field of Dreams. It really was a fantastic day. The young boys and girls who were playing soccer were having a fantastic time and their parents were socialising with each other. It was a really good family day despite it raining later in the afternoon. Everyone was having a great time. This inclusive football program, that I had the chance to participate in, is all about ensuring that any child can have the opportunity to participate in the world game of soccer irrespective of their personal or physical circumstances.
I would like to particularly thank the Mustang's manager Kerri Hutchison and the coaches and parents for putting on the day for the local children, and for what they do for the youth in the North Lakes community all year round. The program receives no funding. It is run entirely on the time and know-how of dedicated volunteers. As Kerri explains, not having any funding is not such a bad thing. It means that the program is not reliant on the government or another third party.
In particular, I would like to thank the volunteers—some of whom have been working in the sporting industry and some who are studying. I would like to thank them for the time and effort that they put into that club, and many other clubs in North Lakes, all year round.
I would also like to mention and thank Jay Larkins, who established the Brisbane Paralympic Football Program in 2006. Jay became passionate about this program after his son was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. He now coaches more than 100 children with disabilities giving them opportunities to engage in team sport and exercise. Jay's 'never say never' attitude has inspired many of the program's participants, with four athletes representing Australia and others working towards qualification for the 2016 Paralympic Games. Congratulations to Jay, to Kerri and to everyone involved with the North Lakes Mustangs. I look forward to visiting again soon.
I rise today to pay tribute to the students and staff at my old school, St. Mary's Cathedral College, in Sydney. On the first day of the new school year, his fellow students learned that Jacques Pacifique had had a relapse of the leukaemia that had been in remission for five years. His fellow students decided, in a great spirit, to show solidarity with their mate. They went to their teachers and decided collectively to engage in the World's Greatest Shave. Sixty-five year 12 students shaved their heads and five teachers did the same. They have raised $50,000 so far for the Leukaemia Foundation.
They got a lot of support from the community. The Bulldogs—the great supporters of Camp Quality who do such great work in the local community—sent along Josh Reynolds, and the Western Sydney Wanderers sent along Ante Covic and they assisted in shaving these young student's heads. The wellbeing master, Daniel Khoury, deserves congratulations for overseeing this process. It is such a heartening sign to see such school spirit at my old school. I wish Jacques all the best for his health and with what he is going through. His fellow students are in contact with him in between his treatments. On behalf of everyone in the parliament, I say best wishes to Jacques and well done to all of his mates.
Tony Abbott's Green Army is 15,000 strong, composed of 17- to 24-year-old people looking for an opportunity. We are just about to finish our first project in Townsville, which is cleaning up the beautiful Booroona Trail along the banks of the Ross River. The people who have been in that program have been energised. They are people with university educations, people who just want a go and people who have moved from Tully and from Charters Towers to be part of this so they can get that opportunity.
It is about breaking the cycle of being unemployed and disengaged. That is the hard part for young people and it is very tough out there at the moment. My electorate has a current unemployment rate of 7.7 per cent. You know in your heart of hearts that the rate of unemployment of our young people is at least triple that. It is very hard to get a start when everyone wants experience. It is very tough for our young people trying to fill out a job application, trying to prove a work ethic and trying to prove that they can do something when they cannot get that experience. It is a catch 22, where they cannot get the experience because they cannot get a job but they cannot get a job because they do not have the experience. It is a frustration that the guys who are working on this have told me about. They have done their courses at university; they have worked very hard but they still cannot do it. They are prepared to do anything. They will wash a truck even though they have a degree in accountancy or something like that.
We have announced our second project, which is cleaning up the banks of Stoney Creek and Saunders Creek which are part of the Bohle River catchment. Sue Blom, a local councillor, has been on about this project for a long time. It is important to also understand that the Green Army does not take work away from other people. It does not take away work that council would be doing. This is stuff that council would not be entertaining. This is extra. It is a way of saying, 'I did something.'
We also have an issue with senior unemployment and underemployment. It seems to me that you have a catch 22 where young people cannot get a start and the older people cannot get a run. This is for conflicting reasons. The hard part is giving these people a go. I am very proud that I am the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment. We have just announced a new inquiry. The committee will:
… inquire into and report on matters that inhibit or discourage job-creation and employment by private sector small businesses and/or provide disincentives to individuals from working for such businesses.
This includes a number of terms of references.
The good part about this is it lets us talk to people who are not from an English-speaking background, people with a disability, people who just want that opportunity and people who just need that start; and it lets us be able to clear the decks so that we can feed this into the taxation white paper and the Federation white paper. I am very energised by this and I want this to be a success.
The federal government's short-sighted hostility to renewable energy in favour of fossil fuels has set investment in the industry back to the level that prevailed 12 years ago. In addition to the federal government's attempts to wind back the Renewable Energy Target, the existing fossil-fuel-powered electricity suppliers are themselves taking steps to minimise the production of electricity from renewable energy sources, in particular by householders and small businesses with rooftop solar photovoltaic, or PV, systems.
In Queensland, utilities have attempted to limit or even stop owners of PV systems from exporting electricity to the grid; while in Victoria the network owners have increased fixed connection charges levied on households in a move that directly discourages any increase in the production of renewable electricity. According to Gavin Dufty, a spokesperson for St Vincent de Paul, a Victorian study commissioned by the society found that:
Over the past five years, the fixed charges for electricity have more than doubled and the fixed charge for gas has gone up over 60 per cent.
The study found that in some cases, households are paying up to $1,000 a year for gas and electricity before having switched on a single light or appliance. These service charges are unrelated to usage, and together with unfair cuts to feed-in tariffs, they undermine the viability of householder PV systems.
Last December, the lobby group Energy Networks Association put forward a proposal to levy fixed charges that would disadvantage PV system owners. They said, 'It is clear that some use of dating network tariff assignment will be needed for some customers if Australia is to protect fair, efficient outcomes for all customers in the general community.' In other words, the real cost of the electricity supply should be submerged in fixed charges that would swamp any cost advantage enjoyed by PV owners.
By early 2013 it was estimated that PV systems were reducing wholesale electricity prices nationally by between $300 million and $670 million per annum. So much for driving up prices. The biggest problem for the owners of the generators and distribution networks is that any further attempts to restrict the growth in household PV systems will only encourage disconnections as storage, possibly linked to batteries and electric cars, becomes ever cheaper. This development has become known by the quaint term 'the grid death spiral'.
In New South Wales Premier Mike Baird wants to privatise the electricity distribution system, but one of the consequences of this would be that new owners would penalise home owners and businesses with PV systems in order to protect their future profits. This is what is happening in the United States and there is every chance that it will happen here, if the electricity distribution system is privatised in New South Wales.
Last weekend our team, the Kooyong Colts, participated in the Hawthorn Relay for Life, raising more than $16,000 for the Cancer Council of Victoria. This brought the total funds raised by the Kooyong Colts over the last four years to more than $65,000.
The Relay for Life started as a fundraising initiative in Australia, in 1999. Relays are now held in every Australian State and Territory, with more than 134,000 participants raising over $24 million each year. Every dollar raised goes towards funding the Cancer Council's vital research, prevention and support programs. The money raised has made a real difference. Five years ago the survival rate was 45 per cent. Today, the survival rate is the highest it has ever been, at 66 per cent, but there is still a long way to go.
Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in Australia, with an estimated 43,700 people succumbing each year. This year alone, more than 108,300 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in Australia, including 868 diagnoses in Boroondara, the local council area mirroring my electorate of Kooyong.
Every Australian has been touched by cancer, whether personally, or through family and friends. Every Australian knows someone who is a survivor, a sufferer, or a carer. One of the most moving moments each year at the Relay for Life in Kooyong is when people light candles, put them in a paper bag, and place them around the relay track as a sign of remembrance for those lost. This candlelight ceremony occurs after dark, and friends walk hand in hand in silence.
It was wonderful to see so many schools participate in this year's Relay for Life, with young people camping out overnight and enjoying the 18-hour walk. Some dressed up as superman, wonder woman and spongebob squarepants. Others donned military fatigues and called their team the 'crazy commandos'. Another team called themselves 'cirque de sore legs'. Each year, one brave man dresses as a woman to take out the title of 'Miss Hawthorn'. Bands play, pizzas are sold, and coffees are on the boil. This year, 400 people participated in the Hawthorn event.
In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to the event organisers, including Emily Cusworth from the Cancer Council of Victoria and, in particular, Graeme and Gill Jacobs, who founded the Hawthorn Relay for Life ten years ago after losing their own daughter to cancer. I would also like to pay tribute to my colleagues Ted Baillieu, the former Premier of Victoria, who is the event's patron, John Pesutto, the Member for Hawthorn, and the Mayor of Boroondara, Councillor Coral Ross, all of whom have been great supporters of the event and have watched it go from strength to strength over the last ten years.
Let's just hope a cure for cancer is found before any more lives are lost. But one thing is for certain: the participants in and organiser of the Hawthorn Relay for Life are doing their part to ensure a stronger community and a healthy one, too.
In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That order of the day No. 1, committee and delegation business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
Skin cancer is very frequently referred to as our national cancer. The outcome of the inquiry that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health undertook into skin cancer in Australia was very, very explicit. It raised a number of issues around skin cancer, and it also highlighted the need for early intervention, early diagnosis and looking at the best practice and the best treatment and management of skin cancer. It highlighted the difference between melanoma skin cancers and non-melanoma skin cancers.
Everybody is aware of melanoma and how melanoma can prove fatal. There was an excellent motion debated in the House on Tuesday night in relation to melanoma. It highlighted the need for Australians—everybody, for that matter—to be very aware of their bodies and to constantly undertake skin checks.
I would just like to spend a little bit of time in this debate talking about the scope of the inquiry—we visited a number of areas in Australia and looked at the issues—and some of the issues that the committee and I believed were most important in relation to skin cancer. The inquiry looked at the statistics, at the different kinds of prevention actions that can be taken, and at diagnosis and treatment. I would like, now, to spend some time going through some of the recommendations of that report. Australia is a sporting nation—we love our outdoors—and the committee received evidence from the PTA, Cricket Australia and Surf Life Saving Australia, looking at skin prevention and the actions that those organisations take to ensure that people who are involved in their sports are aware of the dangers of exposure to ultraviolet rays and the strategies to deal with it.
Cricket Australia and Surf Life Saving Australia were highlighted in our recommendations. I will spend a little bit of time on Surf Life Saving Australia. They have totally changed their culture in the way that our volunteer surf lifesavers, who do such a wonderful job on our beaches, protect their skin, and in their approach to the sun. Gone are the days of lathering yourself in coconut oil; now it is all about skin prevention with long-sleeve shirts, always having the floppy hat on, and having sunscreen available for all the people who are working to protect people in the surf.
There was some concern that high schools do not have the same commitment to prevention of sun damage and skin cancer. In primary schools, it is a 'no hat, no play' approach; in high schools, there is no such approach. I need to acknowledge that it is very difficult to get a high school student to wear a hat, but education about skin cancer needs to be included in the curriculum. There was a very good example in the Hunter region of apps on phones and advertising on the backs of buses, and targeting young people in the way that is best able to reach them.
Every primary school has covered outdoor learning areas, but it is not quite as common in high schools. So there was a recommendation to encourage that to be expanded. We also made a recommendation that local governments give consideration to having shadecloths covering their pools. It is not the responsibility of one level of government; it is the responsibility of all level of governments. It is our reasonability as members of parliament to make sure that that message gets out about having sun-smart programs and policies in place because education is of vital importance.
About 18 months ago, in conjunction with some pharmaceuticals and doctors within Shortland electorate, ran a skin cancer check at Redhead Beach in the electorate of Shortland. On that day, four cases of melanoma were identified. People came from all around the suburb to have their skin checked. A number of people had non-melanoma skin cancers identified. It is really important that when Australians visit their doctor they have proper skin checks. We heard of many occasions where patients were visiting their GP and as they were leaving they said, 'While I am here, Doctor, could you please have a look at this mark on my arm,' and it was identified as being a skin cancer and, in some cases, a quite serious melanoma.
Another area that the committee thought was fairly important to look at was the undergraduate medical curriculum. Currently, the undergraduate medical curriculum has two hours in the whole of the course dedicated to looking at dermatology. We felt that this could be expanded. We also felt that there was a need to increase proficiency in the use of dermascope and that there should be some practical component included in the course.
There are some occupations that are very sun exposed. It was also considered that more education needs to take place in relation to people working in those industries. There are some really standout examples. We heard from a number of witnesses about how, in various workplaces, the exposure to sun was really quite life threatening and we heard of people that had actually lost their lives, particularly in the building industry. The committee thought that, maybe when people are given their competency certificates or induction certificates to go onto a worksite, a component of sun education could be included.
Obviously there needs to be ongoing research, and adequate funds need to be provided to support non-medical services—that is allied health services and allied health support services—particularly for families that live in non-metropolitan or rural and remote areas. The committee believes that there should be a little bit more work done there.
We need public awareness campaigns to increase awareness and the need for skin checks. We especially need strategies for high-risk groups, and I see young people as being at high risk. I note the chair of the committee has just entered the room. He is very committed to fighting for better guidelines, better treatment and better services in the skin cancer area. He presided over this hearing extremely well. As well, I would like to thank the committee secretariat for all the work that they put in— (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
I rise to congratulate the dedicated group of residents in Box Hill South in my electorate who have just won an enormous victory to halt an inappropriate development in their neighbourhood. I received my first complaint from a resident about this proposal in May last year. They were very concerned about a plan to build a 310-dwelling development, including apartment buildings of up to six and seven stories and an aged-care facility, on the site of the former St Leo's College in Hay Street, Box Hill South. It is a very large site that borders Gardiners Creek and has been the subject of a number of previous development applications, all of which have been knocked back due to environmental impact concerns, the difficulties of building on a flood plain area which covers a significant portion of the site and the horrendous traffic issues faced by a development from which traffic can only flow back into small suburban side streets.
It was on this basis, and considering the history of development applications over the last 15 years, that I thought there was no way that the local council would ever approve this application. I have been dealing with this site for the last 15 years as a member of parliament. I thought, 'It'll be knocked off again.' It turned out I was wrong. Between the last development application and this one, the traffic concerns, the density, the environmental impacts, suddenly became no longer of concern to council, VicRoads, Melbourne Water and the independent panel who considered the proposal, despite the fact that there had been no significant changes to the environment, to the issues. These issues had apparently all been overcome and this development could go ahead.
One large issue had changed. The EPA boundary issue about distinction between factories and the site has changed because, sadly, the factories bordering the site have closed and those jobs have been lost. But there is still the issue around environmental impacts, around the flood plains and, most importantly, around traffic. So I and the residents were perplexed. The local residents banded together, led by diligent residents-turned-activists and community leaders such as Tracey Suidgeest and Jane Moulin, and letterboxed their neighbourhoods, held large community meetings, made submissions to the independent panel, vigorously lobbied councillors, arranged for a huge turnout of residents at local council meetings and learned very quickly how to navigate Victoria's complicated planning process. It was a tremendous effort, one that first led to disappointment, when council voted, with one councillor absent, to proceed with the development. But, lo and behold, a month later, in a stunning turnaround, when the absent councillor, Councillor Sharon Ellis, was back, she made an impassioned plea to her collages to rescind the decision and abandon the development. It was a tremendous speech by Councillor Ellis, who articulated what the residents had been objecting to all along. Combined with the last-ditch lobbying work of the Box Hill South residents, it changed the one extra vote on council they needed to stop the development. They have had a stunning victory. The development, as it stands, has been stopped. Common sense has prevailed.
The St Leo's site on Hay Street South does need to be developed. I and the residents do not want to see this large site go to waste. We understand that a reasonable development is needed on this site. We also understand that, as we live in suburbs that are actually serviced well by public transport and other amenities, it is an ideal location for development. But it needs to be properly planned for. If the original site had been used an as aged-care facility, or indeed had converted back to a school, it would have been a magic outcome. But we cannot, as one councillor put it during the debate, just build it and deal with the traffic problems later. The issue, which was stunning the residents, was: 'Somebody will have to die after we build this to actually mitigate the traffic issues.'
This is exactly the approach that has led to more traffic problems in Melbourne. It makes it impossible to park in local streets and hampers the movement of road-based public transport. Far greater emphasis needs to be placed on improving our transport options before we approve large developments, because we know from experience they just will not work. If you build it, it does not mean the public transport and other services come. What does always come, though, are more cars—more demand on street parking and increased difficulty for residents who use these local streets, which also house a local school. Because of where the site is there is no main road access and all the traffic has to flow back into the local streets. I implore the Victorian government, local council and developers to place more emphasis on improving transport infrastructure in these areas before going down the route of making inappropriate developments. Congratulations to all the residents involved.
I rise to talk on the South Perth Aquatic Centre feasibility study. Like the member for Chisholm, mine is a city issue with planning and the rest; but with mine the residents are actually on board for something and South Perth does not want it. I do remember Box Hill South fondly—I used to have a paper round there when I was growing up, and I know the St Leo's site well. Congratulations on your speech.
On 11 March I attended a public meeting in Karawara in my electorate of Swan with more than 150 of my constituents from the City of South Perth. Members might think this was a great turnout to a public meeting, and it certainly was, considering that I and each of these residents was disappointed that the only reason these residents—except for four of them—knew the meeting was even taking place was that my office distributed a letter to all the community prior to that meeting. This community meeting should have been advertised in the local paper, and I will tell you the reason why it was not in a minute. This was not just any meeting. It was supposed to be the first step in a community consultation for the South Perth Aquatic Centre, which I have campaigned for since 2011 while in opposition.
Gaining funding for this sporting infrastructure initiative was a priority of mine. I was pleased to announce that this coalition government understands the need for such a facility in this area and has committed $45,000 in grant funding toward a feasibility study in the 2014-15 budget. It was an important initiative because each of the neighbouring local government areas in my electorate of Swan, including the City of Belmont, the Town of Victoria Park, the City of Canning and the City of Gosnells all have high-quality aquatic centres for their residents while the City of South Perth has no such facility. Not only do they not have a facility, despite it repeatedly being identified by residents as a priority for the community, but the City of South Perth has also attempted to reject the funding and reject in-principle commitments from private enterprises. This public meeting last week was hosted by Jill Powell and Associates, who are the consultants commissioned by the City of South Perth to undertake the feasibility study. But, as I said, the only reason residents knew the meeting was taking place was that I encouraged them, through a distributed letter, to attend and share their grassroots knowledge with the consultants on this particular feasibility study.
The consultants requested the City of South Perth place an advertisement in one of my electorate's local newspapers, The Southern Gazette, to advise residents of the public meeting. She informed me of this particular advertisement back in January when I met with her in my office, and the request was put forward to the City of South Perth in January. The advertisement was drafted and proofed, but somehow seemed to be forgotten. The council officers who were tasked with putting this ad in the paper forgot about it. They absolutely forgot about it. To me, this seems like an agenda: they do not want this facility to go ahead. It is not in their forward estimates, it is not in their forward planning and it is not in their 30-year vision, but still they did not bother to put a small ad in to advise the local community that there was this consultation process taking place.
The councillors were not even aware that the advertisement had not been placed until my office questioned The Southern Gazette and asked them which edition that particular ad was supposed to have been in, because we had not seen it. Now we know why: because the city's process to advertise the meeting completely failed. It should not be acceptable, particularly with the majority of City of South Perth residents wanting an aquatic centre in their local government area. There are many reasons for that, and I have spoken about those in previous speeches: not only health reasons but travel reasons, particularly for an ageing population like in the part of my electorate where the proposed centre will be.
The City of South Perth appears to be out of touch with the ratepayers, and I believe it is time they started listening. I must admit, there were four councillors who turned up, including Councillor Irons—my wife, who is on that particular council—and also Councillor Cala, Councillor Trent and Councillor Huston. At the end of the meeting, when there was a vote taken on who was against the aquatic centre, no-one put their hand up. Councillor Cala and Councillor Trent actually took that on board and have changed their view.
The aquatic centre is something that we looked at with John Alexander; he came and spoke about a private-public partnership in Western Australia at the particular site. That was not taken on board, but it has strong support from Curtin University and all the local swimming groups, who want to see this aquatic facility developed. I say to the local residents and to the City of South Perth, 'Listen to what the ratepayers are saying to you. Get on board; this is an important facility.' We can investigate it and we can make it happen with the support of the local residents. Thank you.
Today I rise to speak about an issue that has received quite a lot of local media attention and concern in my electorate. In Bendigo, a group of about 50 Karen refugees, who have settled and made Bendigo their home, claim that they have been misled by training provider Treble J Enterprises into signing up for an early childhood education course. They were told at the time that they signed up that the course was free and that it would increase their chances of employment. I speak about the growing problem that we have in our VETS sector, and the way private providers are manipulating local markets and manipulating potential students.
These are the concerns that the Karen community members have raised with me. This is the order in which the problem has occurred. First, the group became aware of the course fees. The first time they became aware of the course fees that they would incur as a result of these training diplomas was via a text message. They were told via a text message that they would have to pay a $14,000 VET FEE-HELP loan, and that that loan had been approved. All enrolled in the course maintained that they were told, prior to receiving this text message, that the course would be for free. They can be forgiven for misunderstanding or being misled when we have our own government saying, 'Don't worry about the debt you may incur. When you start a course, whether it be TAFE or university, it is for free. You don't have to pay any up-front costs. You pay costs once you start earning a wage.' There is confusion, at the moment, in our community when providers and parliamentarians use the term 'free'. These courses are not free. As these Karen community members found out via text message, they would be incurring a hefty debt for enrolling in these courses.
When I met with many of the students who were trying to withdraw from the courses because they did not want to incur such a debt I was alarmed not only by the way in which they were enrolled in the course, but by the way in which the course was being delivered. They were enrolled in a diploma of early childhood education to be delivered by the Churchill Education, Queensland organisation. But this organisation had subcontracted the training and the recruitment to Treble J Enterprises.
The trainer for this particular diploma is a guy by the name of Randy. Randy was also responsible for delivering cert III in child care as well as cert IV in disability services, though these courses were cancelled with no clear reason after five modules had been delivered, and all the students were told that they should now enrol in the Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care. There is a question about the quality and the delivery of the courses.
The students were not aware of the training provider delivering cert III or cert IV courses. The trainer refused to provide information to an advocate from the Bendigo neighbourhood centre, who is advocating on behalf of the group. Every one of the community members that I met with had a slightly different story. Some had started certificates; some had not started certificates. Some had not received the paperwork for courses that they believed they had completed, and some had the course cancelled and were encouraged to enrol in their diploma.
The point of concern that I have is the lack of informed consent. Many students signed paperwork with no clear explanation of the fact that they would be incurring a VET FEE-HELP debt. The marketing of the course was deliberately misleading. There was no written information provided following enrolment. There was a dispute about when the census date for the course is, so there is a question about whether we are able to get these fees that now sit against the student's name waived. There is a lack of transparency by the training provider and, more importantly, there is buck-passing going on between the subcontractor and the actual provider. This is simply unacceptable and not fair, and I call on the ACCC to follow the example of what is happening in New South Wales and investigate this matter.
This year marks 100 years since the brave soldiers from the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, the Anzacs, went ashore at Gallipoli, Turkey in 1915. One of the most significant events happening in Queensland this April to recognise the Centenary of Anzac is the re-enactment of a troop train journey that took place 100 years ago. The original steam train embarked from Winton in outback Queensland en route to Brisbane via Rockhampton. The train signed up World War I recruits from country towns at numerous stops along the way. The recruitment drive touted such signs as 'Don't wait until the Germans arrive here', referring to the enemy of the day. The 2015 troop train re-enactment will carry 225 passengers departing Winton on April 20, with overnight stops at Longreach, Emerald, Rockhampton and Maryborough. The train will arrive at Central Station in Brisbane on April 24, the eve of Brisbane's Anzac Day service. Accompanying the troop train will be military re-enactment groups from the Capricorn 9th Battalion Living History Unit, based in Rockhampton, and a light horse brigade. In Rockhampton, the Capricorn RSL sub-branch will host the travellers for dinner at the Frenchville Sports Club, with a World War I theme, on April 22.
The troop train project was initiated by my friend and colleague, Ken O'Dowd MP. The federal government has provided every electorate in Australia with a $125,000 funding pool to distribute for local Centenary of Anzac activities. The federal member for Flynn, myself in Capricornia and our fellow National Party colleagues, the member for Maranoa and the member for Wide Bay, have each contributed a minimum of $25,000 from our respective funds to allow this spectacular re-enactment journey to take place. In my vast electorate of Capricornia, I am delighted to inform the House, a total of 16 community projects, including the troop train, have been funded to mark the Centenary of Anzac. In Capricornia the funding includes: $7,500 to the Livingstone shire to install plaques on a memorial walkway in Emu Park's Centenary of Anzac commemorative precinct; $7,500 to the Livingstone shire for a memorial fountain as part of the Yeppoon Centenary of Anzac commemorative precinct; $2,500 to St Joseph's Primary School in Park Avenue in Rockhampton to create an Anzac memorial; $1,211 to the Keppel Sands State School P&C to establish an Anzac memorial at the school; $7,624 to St Joseph's School at Clermont for a Centenary of Anzac commemorative walkway; $16,124 to restore and relocate two World War I German artillery guns to the site of the John Leak Memorial on Rockhampton's riverbank; $3,167 to the Nebo RSL and Citizens' Auxiliary towards the restoration of existing honour boards and memorabilia at the Nebo Memorial Hall; $6,050 to the Nasho Combined Central RSL sub-branch to re-establish a World War I German Howitzer gun at Rockhampton's botanical gardens; $9,268 to the Central Queensland Family History Association towards the publication of a local history book titled The Great War: Stories from Home and Abroad; $7,675 to the Central Queensland Military Museum, Rockhampton, to create an interactive Centenary of Anzac display room; $5,973 to the Capricornia RSL and Rockhampton sub-branch for re-enacting original local World War I recruitment activities, including restaging a historic recruitment photograph on the same location as the original was taken 100 years ago in Rockhampton; $5,631 to the Capricornia RSL and Rockhampton sub-branch for banners and uniforms for the 9th Battalion Living History Unit for the Centenary of Anzac commemoration activities; $3,112 for a Clermont Historical Centre and Museum display called Anzac Heroes and Heroines; and $21,416 to the Sarina RSL sub-branch for a local history book titled More Than Just a Name, depicting the lives and service history of men and women from the Sarina region who served in World War I. These projects will serve as a respectful footnote in our local history to mark the significance of the Centenary of Anzac.
On the 18 February, I hosted the Wills Youth Issues Forum, which discussed a range of serious issues impacting on our most vulnerable, including the drug ice, alcohol, crime, mental health, homelessness and unemployment. The forum was an outstanding success, with over 100 local residents, social service providers and community leaders coming together to raise awareness and to address some of the biggest challenges we as a community face today. As the forum illustrated, young people today are experiencing some of the most serious challenges and tough economic circumstances in a long time.
The forum's panellists included Les Twentyman from the 20th Man Fund, Senior Sergeant Ron Iddles from the Police Association of Victoria, Superintendent Michael Hermans from Victoria Police, Professor Rob Moodie from the University of Melbourne, Sarah Groves from the Oxygen Committee, Rebecca Scott from STREAT, and Councillor Helen Davidson from Moreland City Council. Local organisations such as Youth Projects, Salvation Army Crossroads, Hope Street, Inner Northern Local Learning and Employment Network and others also made valuable contributions. Each speaker came with a wealth of expertise, knowledge and experience on how we as a country can address these challenges.
Les Twentyman strongly advocated for governments to fund outreach youth workers in all schools who would have the capacity to engage with students on a daily basis and be able to identify at-risk and vulnerable students from an early stage in order to provide assistance. Senior Sergeant Ron Iddles spoke about the links between alcohol, drugs, mental illness and violent behaviour and the proliferation of alcohol licences in Melbourne. Ron spoke about the breakdown of the family unit in our community and the lack of communication between parents and children in modern society. Ron stated that addressing these issues should not solely be attempted through arrest and incarceration but rather having these as part of a sophisticated strategy that involves multiagency coordination and pathways. Superintendent Mick Herman said Hume is identified as the highest socioeconomic underprivileged area in Victoria, and Moreland is the seventh. Mick is a strong believer in providing alternative pathways to prevent young people from reoffending. Professor Rob Moodie said that Australia can learn from the Scandinavian countries that have fewer jails, not more. Every young person should be able to be connected through the community, and alternative pathways and avenues to assist young people ought to take priority over, for example, school suspensions, which should be a last resort. Sarah Groves spoke about the role of Oxygen in Moreland. She said addressing the reasons and causes as to why some young people turn to drugs and other antisocial behaviours, particularly ice, is important to changing behaviours. Rebecca Scott from STREAT spoke about their successful social enterprise model, which has designed, adopted and implemented approaches to address the critical issues of homelessness, disadvantage and youth unemployment.
Based on the forum's discussions and viewpoints, I have developed the following proposals, which I am raising with relevant government, opposition and policy authorities: that federal and state governments investigate and trial the idea of social welfare officers in schools; that state governments review school suspensions in the context of their effectiveness to change student behaviour; that governments should curb the number of liquor licences across Melbourne; that a national homelessness strategy should be developed; that better ways of coordinating youth, social and employment policies between government departments, social service agencies and communities are needed; that genuine and meaningful diversionary and alternative pathways as opposed to prison must be created; and that making it easier for families to proactively seek rehabilitation assistance for drug and alcohol affected relatives is important.
Governments should invest in flexible approaches to tackling homelessness and unemployment by working with social enterprises such as STREAT and investigate ways that more small businesses can engage young people and long-term unemployed through training, education and part-time and ongoing employment. A follow-up forum on unemployment issues should be held to investigate ways government and businesses can stimulate the economy to create more job opportunities for young people. I will be hosting this follow-up forum specifically on local unemployment issues on 30 June and note and thank the shadow minister for employment, the member for Gorton, who will be attending. I am absolutely committed to strengthening our local community fabric by providing the necessary services to our most vulnerable so that no-one is left behind and to ensure job opportunities are made available for those who can and want to work.
This week we have been talking about how we can support older Australians in their retirement through the age pension. Australia's demographics are changing, and people in this place must display long-term vision if we are going to meet the challenges of an aging population. Today I rise to defend Australia's compulsory superannuation scheme and super's role in maximising the number of Australians who are able to support themselves in retirement without relying on the age pension.
I wish I could do it under better circumstances, but unfortunately compulsory superannuation, like the age pension, is under attack by this Liberal coalition government. Two weeks ago the Treasurer announced that the government was looking into allowing first home buyers to access their superannuation to finance their deposit. He has been rightly criticised for proposing such a dud plan that would undermine the fundamental principles of retirement savings and compulsory superannuation but also exacerbate Australia's housing affordability crisis.
Unfortunately, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, who supported this idea initially, needed to check first with their trusted ally the Minister for Finance if they wanted sound advice before announcing their new plans. When asked about this exact policy in October last year, the Minister for Finance said:
Increasing the amount of money going into real estate by facilitating access to super savings pre-retirement will not improve housing affordability.
It would increase demand for housing and, all other things being equal, would actually drive up house prices by more.
What a great deal of prescience from the Minister for Finance—a view backed emphatically by economists and public policy professionals.
This split in cabinet says everything about the new era of good government that was meant to be characterized by sound policymaking and a more consultative leader. It may seem like an ill-advised thought bubble if viewed as a one-off, but unfortunately there is precedent for Coalition governments undermining our compulsory superannuation scheme. They opposed its introduction by the Hawke-Keating governments and they do not understand it to this day. Last year the Treasurer announced that the scheduled increase for compulsory super contributions from nine to 12 per cent would be postponed. Unable to accept the fact that his policies were disadvantaging millions of Australians, the Treasurer said:
… if people think that this is going to have a long-term impact on their superannuation, blame Labor, they wouldn’t let us keep our election commitments.
This is also the case for the low income superannuation contribution, a policy targeted at helping the poorest workers save for their retirement which was also cut by the Abbott government on coming into office. These actions will mean less superannuation savings for retirees, and not by a small amount; it will mean tens of thousands of dollars less in the pockets of Australian retirees at their retirement.
The coalition's form on compulsory super spans back decades from when former Prime Minister John Howard undermined superannuation in his very first year in office. In the 1995 budget Labor Treasurer Ralph Willis, one of my predecessors in this place as a former member for Gellibrand and one of the great advocates for superannuation not only in this place but also in his previous career at the Australian Council of Trade Unions, proposed scheduled increases to compulsory super contributions from nine to 12 per cent and eventually to 15 per cent. The Howard led opposition, hiding its true intentions, went to the 1996 election promising to keep these scheduled increases. Howard and Costello broke their promise and axed the increase less than six months after they released their policy, claiming they could not afford it. Sound familiar? It is standard practice for incoming coalition governments and it is happening all over again under the Abbott government.
The current Prime Minister, who has called out compulsory superannuation scheme 'one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people', is following in the footsteps of his self-proclaimed paternal figure, John Howard, who on its introduction called it a 'job killer'. The kind of chaos we have seen on superannuation policy from this government in the last six months is indicative of a party that does not understand the fundamentals of superannuation. A government that halts the mandatory super contribution increase, that undermines the foundations of a system that seeks to help people save for their retirement and then cuts the age pension is a government with no long-term vision.
It has been 45 days since the Prime Minister announced 'good government starts today'. From the chaos we have seen on superannuation policy and the broken promises we have seen on the age pension, it is clear that this is just another broken promise from a government with no credibility.
On Monday this week the Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet held an event in the parliament for Tibet Advocacy Day. The AAPGT is a bipartisan group whose purpose is to amplify Tibet's voice in parliament through events such as Tibet Advocacy Day. This year's event had a special focus on political prisoners and the human rights situation in Tibet. Together with my co-chair, Michael Danby MP, and other members of the group, we heard some telling personal stories from delegates whose lives have been directly impacted by China's harsh policies in Tibet: Mr Lobsang Lungtok, Co-Chair of the Australia Tibet Council, previously a political prisoner in Tibet; Mr Sonam Paljor, Australia Tibet Council board member; and Ms Tenzin Chokey from South Australia. Tenzin visited parliament last year for advocacy day and is now working as a nurse in Adelaide.
The delegates' message to parliamentarians was to call upon the Chinese government to release two political prisoners in particular: Mr Tenzin Delek Rinpoche and Mr Runggye Adak. On 1 August 2007, Runggye Adak, a nomad from eastern Tibet, stepped onstage at an official function at the Lithang Horse Racing Festival. While on stage he boldly grabbed the microphone and addressed a crowd of several thousand Tibetans who had gathered for the annual festival, and he publicly called for the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet. For this simple, brave, passionate act he was arrested and sentenced to eight years in prison by the Chinese authorities, who charged him with 'provocation to subvert state power'. Runggye Adak has now spent over seven years in prison and is in seriously poor health. The Australia Tibet Council is calling on the Australian government to seek confirmation that Mr Adak will be released at the completion of his sentence and that his political rights will not be suspended.
The second case is that of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, who was arrested in 2002 on charges of 'crimes of terror and incitement of separatism'. He received a death sentence with a two-year reprieve which was later commuted to life imprisonment and then reduced to a term of 20 years. His expected release date is not known, but he is known to be in extremely ill health with a heart condition. He is eligible for medical parole, which has been formally applied for by his family last year, but they have not had any response from the Chinese authorities. Throughout his trial and time in prison Tenzin has maintained his innocence. His conviction was solely based on a confession obtained under torture by his alleged co-conspirator, who was also found guilty and was executed in 2003. There are many examples of political prisoners held in China being released on medical prole following diplomacy by foreign governments who have raised specific cases as a priority. The AAPGT is discussing how it can support the ATC in both of these cases.
The delegates also raised 31 March as the last day for countries to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and it is believed the bank plans to build 20 dams across Tibet. Tibet is the source of five major rivers that feed into India, China, Bangladesh and Pakistan. If this water gets affected upstream, it could cause devastation in neighbouring countries downstream, given these countries all have agri-based economies. It is important that there be greater transparency about how the population in the fragile Tibetan plateau will be affected by these dams. Tibetans are not against development, but they want to make sure that development is inclusive of human rights, and you certainly cannot argue about that. Our group had actually requested a visit to Tibet to see the conditions firsthand, following discussions I initiated with the visiting Chinese ambassador in early 2014. We are still waiting on that to be confirmed: we hope the proposal will be accepted, and we appreciate the assistance that we have had from our foreign minister, Julie Bishop. China must understand that if it has nothing to hide in Tibet then there is no reason why unsupervised visits to the Tibetan region should not be allowed. As we look towards 2015, we look forward to celebrating His Holiness the Dalai Lama's birthday in July and continuing to support the great work of the Australia Tibet Council to help create a better future for Tibet.
Last Friday, 20 March, was the National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence, and I was privileged to spend the morning with students and teachers at the Wadalba Community School, who were celebrating Harmony Day. These two days share a lot in common. Both promote inclusiveness and tolerance. Across Australia, a total of 1,974 schools and 882,435 students participated in the National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence.
As a member of parliament, I have spoken about the need to take a stand against bullying and violence. I was proud to support the Enhancing Online Safety For Children Bill, and I welcome the appointment of Alastair MacGibbon as our nation's first ever Children's e-Safety Commissioner. This is an important element of enhancing the security and safety of Australian children online and in our community. Approximately one in four Australian students in years 4 to 9 report being bullied. Around one in five young Australians aged eight to 17 experience online bullying, with those aged between 10 and 15 most likely to be involved. Sadly, young people can be reluctant to report bullying, for reasons including shame, concerns and belief they should be able to manage it themselves.
The National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence provides a focus for schools to come together to support a strong message in our school communities: that bullying and violence are not okay at any time. We must work together to lend a hand of support to those who are victims of bullying and violence, with a view to eliminating the horrific consequences that come with prolonged bullying and violence.
Whilst visiting Wadalba Community School, I spoke with year 12 student Jake, and Jake shared with me his experience of bullying at school. I was surprised to learn that Jake, who was a positive and vibrant young man, had experienced bullying. Jake explained how he had been bullied and called names because he was outgoing and friendly to all of his fellow students. Jake told me: 'There is so much pressure on how you dress and look. The bullying led to anxiety, and I did not want to leave home.'
One of the most alarming things Jake said was that most of the bullying does not happen at school; it happens at home. This is due to the impact of the internet and other technological advances such as smartphones. In 2011, the use of social media was identified as the primary form of digital communication between young people aged 13 and over. It is estimated that 463,000 Australian children and young people per year are exposed to cyberbullying, and this equates to approximately 1,272 every day.
Nicole Miller, Wadalba Community School's student support officer, advised me of how her school is striving to provide support for students who may be experiencing bullying, either online or in the schoolyard. This includes a school website which contains links to how to deal with bullying, advice for students, and a mechanism to report instances of bullying within the school community.
Last Friday I also met with Katina Astles, Better Buddies program coordinator with the Alannah and Madeline Foundation. I am a strong supporter of the Better Buddies Program, and I am pleased to be able to support Brooke Avenue Public School in my electorate with this great initiative. Katina and I discussed the need to tackle bullying in schools and provide sufficient support and resources to equip parents, teachers and students in this cause.
The Alannah and Madeline Foundation provide a range of excellent tools and resources to protect children. Better Buddies helps students entering their first year of primary school to feel safe, valued and connected to the school community. The school pairs new primary students with an older student buddy to help them through the difficult transition into school and, at Brooke Avenue, the kindergarten students all are supplied with a Buddy Bear when they commence school. Another initiative supporting children who are victims of violence is Buddy Bags, which provide basic, essential items to children in emergency accommodation, including comfort items such as a book and a teddy bear. Katina advised me that restoring a sense of safety and security into children's lives during a traumatic time is one of the first steps to recovery, and Buddy Bags help to make this transition a little easier.
Importantly, Katina shared this government's view that it is essential that we provide greater support to children engaging in an online environment. The eSmart Digital Licence is an online challenge which uses quizzes, videos and games to prepare Australian children aged 10 and over to be smart, safe and responsible digital citizens. This eSmart Digital Licence builds upon this government's establishment of the Children's e-Safety Commissioner, as well as the Alannah and Madeline Foundation's eSmart schools, which operate in over 2,200 schools nationwide.
In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the work of Katina and the dedicated teachers engaged in this program at Wadalba and Brooke Avenue, and all those who dedicate their time and efforts to keeping our children safe from bullying and violence.
I rise to speak on the building at 310 St Kilda Road, located within Melbourne's Victoria Barracks. Opened in 1937, 310 St Kilda Road was formally known as the repatriation building for soldiers returning from war. During World War II, this building saw more than 200 patients each day to help repatriate them back into the community. During 1946-47, new wings were added to the building to keep up with the overwhelming demand to help soldiers with medical and psychological injuries. After its need to repatriate soldiers had been fulfilled following World War II, this two-storey rendered brick building was more recently converted into offices. However, since 1998, this building has been unoccupied and fallen into disrepair. 310 St Kilda Road, Victoria Barracks in Melbourne was home to soldiers returning from war to help them find themselves back in the communities they once left. But the building currently does not have an identified use by the Department of Defence.
A proposal for which Mark Johnston, a lead organiser for the Australian National Veterans Arts Museum, ANVAM, has lobbied me, and one which I find myself passionate about, is to turn this unused building back to its original glory and once again help aid in repatriating our returned soldiers back into the community through the use of art rehabilitation developed by the ANVAM initiative, a national tribute to military veterans and families. Veterans often return home with acute psychological or medical conditions that impair functioning, family relationships and re-entry into the workforce, with many suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. Reports have highlighted the impacts of defence service on veterans and their families, including on their mental health, and the need for support and appropriate treatment is critical and should be nationally addressed for the sake of our soldiers, our national heroes. Art therapy provides effective treatment and health maintenance intervention for veterans, focusing on all of their life challenges, such as mental, physical and cognitive impairments. Intense emotion and memory, often difficult to convey in words, can often be more easily expressed in images with the guidance of a trained therapist. Given the number of soldiers who have gradually returned from our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, whom we paid tribute to over the weekend through the national day of commemoration for Operation Slipper, art therapy has the potential to assist them as a form of rehabilitation.
In Labor's last budget, we committed a record $12.5 billion to veterans, including an additional $26.4 million over the forward estimates to expand access to mental health services for current and former members of the ADF and their families. Labor hopes that the Abbott government is able to work in a sensible and bipartisan approach in aiding in the proper repatriation and suitable care of our returning soldiers. I believe the project for 310 St Kilda Road to turn this building back to a safe place, a constructive space, for returned soldiers will help our heroes battle the constant mental and physiological impairments they face each day due to the sacrifices they made to protect our country.
On 12 April, I will be at New Italy to celebrate Carnevale Italiano. There is an amazing story of resilience behind this annual celebration. In 1880, 50 Italian families, 340 people, left poverty and desperate economic and social conditions in northern Italy to seek a new life. They spent their life savings on an enticing plan organised by a French nobleman, the Marquis de Rays, to sail to a new land in the South Pacific called La Nouvelle France.
However, they were misled, and many died on the frightful journey from Barcelona in the SS India. When they arrived after months at sea at a harsh and untamed remote part of New Ireland called Port Breton, east of Papua New Guinea, they faced inadequate and rotting food, the tropical climate, sickness and many deaths and found themselves in greater hardship than they had left behind. More family members grew sick and died as they endured months under the harsh and remote circumstances at Port Breton.
Feeling no option but to risk the seas again in the SS India, they persuaded the captain to take them off the island. They wanted to go to Sydney, but as the ship was unsound the captain took them to Noumea, in New Caledonia, which at the time was a French governed penal settlement. Sickness and death continued on this voyage, and on arrival in Noumea the SS India was regrettably declared unseaworthy, and the families were stranded again.
Through the British consul in Noumea, news of the plight of the families reached Sir Henry Parkes, who was the Premier of New South Wales, who gave permission for the stranded Italian families to come to Sydney and sent the James Patersonfor their rescue. On 7 April 1881, destitute and in poor health, 217 survivors of the original 340 Italians sailed into Sydney Harbour. More than one in three family members had died on the Marquis de Rays's expedition and the pioneers' journey to Australia.
Within three months, all the families were given labouring jobs throughout the colony for 12 months, but they had a strong desire to reunite at the end of the 12 months. When they learned of land that was available in northern New South Wales near Lismore, they took steps to buy it and move there together. The land was of poor quality and had been rejected by other settlers. Through sheer determination, tenacity and hard work, the families made the parcel of sterile forest productive and recreated the social fabric of their country of origin. They built a school, a church, a wine shop and small industry. On family values, community and hard work, what became known as the settlement of New Italy was built.
As the original pioneers of New Italy began to die and the next generation of families moved to surrounding towns for work, most of the land of the original New Italy settlement was sold. In 1961, however, the New Italy Museum Incorporated was created under founding president Spencer Spinaze to establish a memorial tribute to the settlers. I know many descendants of these amazing pioneers who live in our community today. Many are community leaders in an array of fields. I pay tribute to the following families and their descendants for the richness they have added to our community in so many ways: the Antoniollis, the Battistuzzis, the Bazzos, the Bertolis, the Buoros, the Caminettis, the Capelins, the Gaurischis, the Gavas, the Marozins, the Martinuzzis, the Mazzers, the Mellares, the Morandinis, the Morandys, the Nardis, the Nicolis, the Palis, the Pedrinis, the Pellizers, the Pezzuttis, the Piccolles, the Roders, the Rosolens, the Sanettis, the Scarrabelottis, the Serones, the Spinazes, the Tedescos, the Tomas and the Zanninis.
I would also like to pay tribute to the organisers and the friends of the New Italy committee: John and Ellen Barnes, Sam and Margaret Robertson, Gail Williams, Peter and Pauline Blackwood, Charlie Tyler, Lois Randel, Leonie Lane, Julie de Nardi and Lester Cooke and to Americo Melqua and Alyson Kelly for her organisation. It is going to be an absolutely wonderful celebration, I know, on 12 April, and I encourage everyone in the community to come along and celebrate what is an amazing story.
Thank you very much, Acting Speaker.
It is just Deputy Speaker.
Deputy Speaker—well, you speak as well as you sang last night!
Thank you very much for that!
In April last year, 300 schoolgirls were kidnapped in Nigeria. There was a global outcry and a social media campaign, Bring Back Our Girls, which brought to light the conflict in northern Nigeria but has been otherwise, in my view, ineffective. Some of the girls were forcibly converted and appeared on a horrific Boko Haram video. It is understandable, in that the disappearance of the flight MH370 occurred at the same time, but there was insufficient serious international effort to help find these missing girls, and now we have 500 other women and children who have been kidnapped just in the last few days in northern Nigeria and almost no international outrage. This mass abduction last year was not the first occasion. In April 2013 Boko Haram had already kidnapped another 250 girls. This was the turning point in their method of operation and in their kind of terrorism, which had previously been drive-by shootings and the torching of churches and schools. They are opposed entirely to the population of northern Nigeria receiving an education. Since the April 2013 abduction it is estimated that between 500 to 2,000 women and girls have disappeared, with little action from the Nigerian army. There was a very unimpressive briefing with a lack of passion by the Nigerian High Commissioner here to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
It seems now that mass kidnappings are the centrepiece of Boko Haram's campaign. The people kidnapped are used as soldiers. The women are used as so-called wives or sex slaves, as bargaining chips as cooks and, now, as suicide bombers. In January this year there was a horrific new development: a 10-year-old girl who had been kidnapped by Boko Haram had explosives strapped to her and was told to march into a market. I do not think she knew what had been strapped to her, and her handlers detonated the explosives, killing 16 people. This horrific organisation is quite willing to use people as cannon fodder like the jihadists who have recently used the poor, deluded Australians—including from my city of Melbourne—as cannon fodder and suicide bombers in northern Iraq. On 7 February this year the Nigerian government announced that elections had been deferred until the end of March. Polls have made it clear that the people of Nigeria are going to boot out this government in protest at the security situation, and since that announcement the Nigerian army seems to have taken a little more action against Boko Haram. The Economist has reported that the hitherto inept Nigerian army is starting to make some progress, taking back about 30 villages from the terrorist group since that announcement in February.
The Nigerian army is cooperating with the armies of Chad and Cameroon and, of course, the Western world is providing considerable international aid to Nigeria. Some of this aid seeks to address problems associated with malnutrition, dirty water and mosquito-borne diseases. This aid bypasses the Nigerian government because of justified Western concerns about corruption. It partially relieves the Nigerian government of having to deal with these issues itself. Thinking that it had been relieved of the need to tackle pressing poverty, President Jonathan did essentially nothing in the month after the girls were kidnapped last year. The kidnapping was initially dismissed as a local issue or, alternatively, that the West had to go and fight Boko Haram. In today's Times of London, Roger Boyes concludes: 'Don't get me wrong, President Jonathan isn't entirely sitting on his hands. He has implemented reforms in agriculture, he has tackled inflation, he has privatised electricity'—there is a lesson for New South Wales!
Whoever wins this weekend's election, the contest is between Jonathan and a former general. They will need to make more urgent and brave actions to change Nigeria. It can be a successful country, but to turn it into one will require—if you will excuse the pun—more than good luck. It needs good leaders. It is good that the West African forces appear to have Boko Haram on the back foot, but we need more international action and less rhetoric if we are really going to put some meaning into that well-meaning international call for bringing back our girls.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity this morning to talk about my recent visit to the Lucy Chieng Aged Care Centre in Hurstville. Lucy Chieng is a not-for-profit aged-care centre that is located in a very quiet spot in Hurstville in my electorate. It opened some four years ago and has 70 beds, offering respite care and a specialised dementia wing. It is one of the very few specialised Chinese aged-care facilities anywhere in the southern Sydney region. Indeed, the issue of culturally specific and culturally relevant aged care is a very important one in our city and across our nation, and the Lucy Chieng facility is a very good example of providing culturally specific aged care to senior Australians.
While I was there, I was given a tour of the facility by Ada Cheng, who is the CEO of the Australian Nursing Home Foundation, and members of the organisation's board, and I would like to congratulate the board for their very strong stewardship of the facility and their work in ensuring its success. Members of the board include Ellen Louie, Monica Chu, Mei Mei Tse, Andrew Gock and Bernard Tse, all of whom have done a terrific job in managing this centre.
The centre uses Mandarin, Cantonese, and English as appropriate in working with residents. It holds a range of cultural celebrations across the year, and celebrations for important Chinese holidays—not only Chinese New Year, but also the Moon Festival and other events throughout the year. It is a very modern and spacious centre, has a terrific outdoor garden area for residents to enjoy, and is very well located, because it is very close to the centre of Hurstville whilst being a very quiet spot. I do again congratulate the board of Lucy Chieng and all the staff on their success.
I also wanted to raise another matter of great concern in my community. This issue particularly concerns the people of Padstow in my electorate. At the moment, Deputy Speaker, the people of Padstow are confronted by the Bankstown City Council local area plan, or the Padstow plan as it is more broadly known. This plan is completely inappropriate and wrong for Padstow. Under this proposal more than 30 streets in the Padstow area would be rezoned so that buildings of between three and eight storeys would be allowed. This would really significantly change the character of Padstow. The proposal is very broad in its implications for the suburb and includes the capacity to build six-storey buildings directly across the road from the Padstow Park Primary School, which is completely inappropriate. It is a plan that needs to be revised and reviewed. That is why I say that the Padstow plan is just wrong for our area. Rezoning more than 30 streets to allow for buildings of between three and eight storeys will fundamentally change the character of Padstow forever. Hundreds of residents have supported my campaign to speak out against the Padstow plan. It is the wrong plan for our area, and I call on Bankstown City Council to tear up the Padstow plan and go back to the drawing board. It is very important that that occur, because what we do not want is a change to the village atmosphere of Padstow. It is a quiet place; it is a place where people enjoy a peaceful life. Putting a large number of high-rise buildings all around the suburb of Padstow, which would be allowed under this plan, is not the right approach, and I am strongly encouraging the council to reconsider this plan.'
I rise today to draw the attention of the House to a most serious issue that I have discussed many times in this place and that is very important to my electorate of Deakin: the current state of play with respect to the East West Link project in Victoria. From a federal perspective, we have provided a commitment of $3 billion to build stages 1 and 2 of the East West Link, and I have spoken many times about the demonstrable benefits of the project, and I will not go through them again today.
We know that, with Victoria's population continuing to grow, there is no time to be spared in delivering the infrastructure that our city so desperately needs. It is true to say—and this is not contentious—that the East West Link remains the only shovel-ready infrastructure project in Victoria of its scale with funding in place at a federal, state and private level.
It is true to say that this is a fully-funded and shovel-ready project.
Unfortunately, though, before last year's Victorian state election, the then opposition leader made a very reckless commitment to tear up the East-West Link contract, claiming, to use his words, 'It was not worth the paper it was written on.' This claim has now blown up and proven to be the lie that I think many people always knew it was. Premier Dan Andrews is now facing the prospect of paying up to $1.2 billion of taxpayer's money not to build the road—$1.2 billion, potentially, not to build the East-West Link. This would deprive Victoria of nearly 7,000 jobs and the up to three hours a week that it would save some commuters, including commuters in my electorate of Deakin.
But what is even more alarming is that rather than swallowing his pride and getting on with honouring the contract, which is still in place, Premier Andrews is now seriously contemplating introducing legislation to declare the contracts null and void. As you can imagine, the threat to declare invalid legally-binding contracts is sending shockwaves throughout the Australian and international investment community. In fact, in a recent article entitled 'Can Australia be taken at its word?' the investment journal Infrastructure Investor stated that Australia risks losing its status as:
… the world’s most attractive infrastructure destination …
should the Labor Party continue down this reckless path.
Further, InfraAsia, another infrastructure publication, recently reported that 'The upshot of Labor's decision to suspend the East-West Link is that investors can no longer be assured that a signed contract in Australia is worth the paper it is written on.' Given the above, you would think that the comments by the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, last year would resonate with the Leader of the Opposition and Premier Dan Andrews, when he said, 'Bill Shorten and I are as one on this issue. Labor in government honours contracts entered into by previous governments, even if we don't like them for issues of sovereign risk.'
So for Bill Shorten to have a word to his Labor colleague, Daniel Andrews, is too much to ask. The opposition leader was flushed out on this issue last week—very reluctantly. Notwithstanding his attempts to bluster and avoid the question, the journalists finally pinned him down to an answer. And the Leader of the Opposition—notwithstanding the fact that he has provided two submissions in support of the East-West Link, both in his capacity as a union leader and then as a member of this place—refuses to continue with his view that the East-West Link is the most vital project in Victoria. But that is not surprising, because the Leader of the Opposition is very well known for changing his mind.
Putting politics aside, I think that the Labor Party needs to swallow their pride on this issue and do what is best for Victoria. This is a fully funded and shovel-ready project. Victoria is a growing city. Traffic congestion is not going to go away magically—
I thought it was Melbourne!
Traffic congestion will not get better if we just hope that it does. We must make the infrastructure investments now. That is why I call on the Labor Party to build the East-West Link. (Time expired)
I will just point out to the member for Deakin that he misled people when he said that Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, has supported the East-West Link. What he failed—
It was—
And listen—this is the bit you do not do! Bill Shorten, as AWU leader, and as MP—
Have you read them? You haven't read them, have you?
They are different projects! The Eddington project is different to the one that you guys lied to the community about!
Order!
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
Dan Andrews, as premier, is doing something that this Liberal government does not do. Dan Andrews is sticking to his promises, while this lot over there break their promises every day of the week!
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
You can hear the carry on over there!
Let us remember the shonky, shifty side deal that was done to bypass the courts by the Liberal government in Victoria. Speaking of Dan Andrews, let us talk about the hard work he is doing of getting on with the job of delivering to growth communities. The temporary member for Deakin laughs, but we have got to remember that in the seat of McEwen—
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
You will not be here next election, mate.
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
That is right. You spent $850,000 and you lost. There is a good reason why you are gone.
Please do not have this interaction across the chamber.
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
I would disagree with that. The temporary member for Deakin—
Order! You will refer to the member by his title, please.
I did refer to him as the member for Deakin. I specifically said the member for Deakin. In 2014 we saw approximately 6,000 residents move into the area around Mernda and Doreen. It is a massive population migration from metropolitan Melbourne.
As we know, the growth of the Mernda and Doreen area has been continuing since its explosion nearly a decade ago. Initially they were well designed suburbs with three primary schools. There was also a town centre plan which was approved in 2007 and was to include community centres, libraries and many more facilities. Unfortunately, for the last four years has been a complete stop on any of the much needed infrastructure in our community. The fault lies solely on the shoulders of the former Liberal government. During their four years, not one cent of road spending was put into an area which has seen some 20,000 residents move in. Their ineptitude and inaction has left have left residents in Mernda in despair. Sadly, there are many families contemplating moving away because of the inaction of the Bailleau-Napthine failure.
As a result of the failure of the Bailleau-Napthine shambolic term in office, there is a backload of projects that are needed urgently. For instance, there is no secondary school or police station in the area and extremely limited transport options. There are not many recreation facilities throughout the community and we do not even have a town square. Luckily the Andrews government has swung into action and help is on its way. Last month, Daniel Andrews announced the fast tracking of the Mernda Central p-12 school. Construction is due to commence at the end of the year and will open in the 2017 school year. It is going to make a huge difference to the lives of people in Mernda.
There is also the issue of the NBN. Labor's NBN plan, rolled out through Mernda and Doreen, was chugging along nicely until the Abbott government was elected and scrapped it. Many residents now live in areas where you can get NBN on one side of the street but not on the other because the now government tore up the plan and is delivering a second-class service to the people of Mernda and Doreen and in many other areas.
In the City of Whittlesea, the local council went out and invested time and money to put pipes into the ground ready for the rollout. But because the Abbott government has stopped the rollout of NBN, the council is now out there seeking an ISP to actually fill in and take up the charge because this government here in Canberra has ripped up NBN and at best is offering a second-class service. Even last week we saw the Minister for Communications finally admit that another promise was broken. They cannot and will not deliver the service that they promised the people of Victoria at the last election. They cannot do it and they are not going to do it.
Each and every day in this shambolic chaos of a government, we see backflip after backflip. There is not a promise they have taken to the last federal election that they have not broken. It is a sign of concern to residents of Mernda and Doreen, who want to get access to broadband for education, the business and for entertainment. They know that under this government it will not happen.
I wish to raise two telecommunication issues in the Shortland electorate in this adjournment debate today. The first is mobile coverage in the Caves Beach area of Shortland electorate and, secondly, television coverage within the Belmont, Dudley, Central Coast areas of my electorate. These are both issues that I have raised on many occasions.
I finally decided that the only way to deal with it was to bring it to this House. When the minister wrote to members of parliament asking them to identify black spots within their area, there was one electorate he did not write to, and that was Shortland electorate. He wrote to Newcastle electorate, which has got a much denser population than Shortland electorate, but he deemed that Shortland electorate, which is spread out from the eastern side of Lake Macquarie through to little settlements down on the Central Coast, to be too highly populated. I question that.
Thankfully, Telstra have identified that for mobile phone coverage in Caves Beach, the need for a mobile phone tower is the No. 1 issue in the Hunter. They see that it is paramount. It has been a problem for quite a while and they submitted to the minister in relation to black spots. Now, I am not holding my breath. I do not believe that the minister will make an announcement of a Telstra tower at Caves Beach. If he does, when he makes his announcement I will be eternally grateful and so will the people of Caves Beach. I am not holding my breath.
The other issue that I wanted to raise was in relation to TV reception in the areas that I detailed—Belmont, Jewells and Dudley. To some extent there are also areas down on the Central Coast that have very inadequate access, particularly to ABC coverage. I have written to the minister. I have been in touch with ACMA. I have had over 500 people in the Belmont area contact me. Belmont is an area that has a very significant population but still there has been no resolution to the problem. There was a problem in the Belmont North area of Shortland electorate. A transmitter was put in place there by the previous Labor government because they knew that there was a big problem. But unfortunately I have only received rhetoric and weasel words in response to my letters to the current minister. He responded by saying that there are solutions, that they are engaged in discussions, and that there are various technical factors. He said that it is unlikely that any terrestrial base solutions will fix the problem, abrogating their responsibility.
I have invited ACMA and regional broadcasters to attend a public meeting with me, and they have all declined. The minister has suggested that the residents of the Belmont area may like to invest in—pay for—VAST so they can access free-to-air television. So the minister is suggesting that the people of Shortland, Belmont, Dudley and other areas of the Central Coast, actually pay to get free-to-air television. Now that is not good enough. They are generic programs. People living in our area will not get access to local news, they will not get access to local advertising and they will be receiving a second-class service.
I call on the minister to act on both these issues—to resolve the television reception in the areas that I have identified and also to ensure that the residents of Caves Beach can have mobile coverage.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:54