I present report No. 34 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of private members' business on Monday, 19 October 2015. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of private Members ' business.
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 13 October 2015.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of private Members' business on Monday, 19 October 2015, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Orders of the day
1 SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT (CONSUMER LEASE EXCLUSION) BILL 2015 (from Senate): Member to move second reading ( from 10 September 2015 ). :
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Ms Macklin 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Mover may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41.
Notices
1 MR CHRISTENSEN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes. (Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting Discrimination Based On Location) Bill 2015).
(Notice given 13 October 2015.)
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mr Christensen 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
2 MS PLIBERSEK: To move—
That this House calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to support a parliamentary debate during the current sitting on the Australian Government's strategy in response to the crisis in Syria and Iraq.
(Notice given 13 October 2015.)
Time allotted—20 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Ms Plibersek 5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MS MARINO: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the jobs of the future will require science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills;
(2) welcomes the Government's ongoing investment of $9.7 billion in science, research and innovation; and
(3) acknowledges that the Government is:
(a) delivering on its promised Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda; and
(b) putting science at the centre of industry.
(Notice given 16 September 2015.)
Time allotted—50 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Ms Marino 10 minutes.
Next Member 10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 and 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MS PARKE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there is considerable evidence that payday lending and consumer leases are not properly regulated and that both financial practices are causing serious harm to low income Australians;
(b) irresponsible and immoral lending is endemic in the payday lending industry, which is growing rapidly and developing new online opportunities to encourage people to borrow with insufficient consideration of their capacity to bear the exorbitant and poorly regulated interest costs that payday lending involves;
(c) the Australian Securities and Investment Commission review of payday lending found that 24 per cent of loans were taken out by Centrelink customers and 54 per cent were taken out by customers who had two or more payday loans in the previous 90 days, a clear indication that they are caught in a cycle of repeat borrowing;
(d) consumer leases can involve an effective annualised interest rate of 240 per cent, and generally mean that vulnerable consumers pay three or four times the value of basic household items like refrigerators or washing machines;
(e) consumer leases operate with lower consumer protection standards under the National Credit Code, though such agreements are not materially different in effect from credit contracts;
(f) in 2013-14 nearly half of Radio Rentals' $197 million revenue was received through the Centrepay system which allows payments to be directly debited from a consumer's Centrelink account; and
(g) Senator Cameron has brought a Private Senators' Bill that seeks to remove consumer leases from access to the Centrepay system; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) ensure that the recently announced review into the 2013 reforms to payday lending focuses on securing the wellbeing and protection of low income Australians irrespective of the effect this has on the profits of companies that practice this kind of often predatory lending;
(b) act quickly to stop consumer leases being used to prey on vulnerable and low income Australian households by ensuring that consumer leases are subject to the same standards and controls as credit contracts, and by introducing stricter controls on the currently outrageous and indefensible costs involved in such arrangements, including the requirement to prominently disclose the total cost of all contracts; and
(c) support Senator Cameron's initiative in removing access to Centrepay for consumer lease companies and amend section 123TC of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to include a definition of consumer leases for this purpose.
(Notice given 18 August 2015.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 pm.
Speech time limits—
Ms Parke—5 minutes .
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS OWENS: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) National Week of Deaf People runs from 17 to 24 October 2015;
(b) one in six Australians are affected by hearing loss;
(c) there are approximately 30,000 deaf Auslan users with total hearing loss;
(d) projections for 2050 indicate that one in every four Australians will have hearing loss; and
(e) 90 per cent of people born with hearing impairment are born into hearing families;
(2) congratulates the deaf community and celebrates its outstanding contribution to the nation;
(3) acknowledges Auslan as the language of the Australian deaf community;
(4) reaffirms the need for deaf people to be fully included in the Australian community;
(5) recognises that significant challenges still exist for the deaf community when dealing with governments and government departments; and
(6) encourages the Government to improve communication with the deaf community by ensuring that information is translated into Auslan on its websites.
(Notice given 12 October 2015.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Ms Owens 5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
1 MARRIAGE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 (Mr Entsch): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from 12 October 2015).
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Notices—continued
2 MS VAMVAKINOU: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and that Monday 26 October 2015 is Pink Ribbon Day; and
(b) breast cancer remains the most common cancer in Australian women and the second most common cancer to cause death in Australian women;
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) support Breast Cancer Awareness Month;
(b) promote early detection; and
(c) encourage women, especially women aged 50 to 74 years, to have a mammogram every two years; and
(3) acknowledges:
(a) the invaluable work done by the National Breast Cancer Foundation and the Breast Cancer Institute of Australia, especially in supporting important research into treatment and a cure;
(b) the fundraising efforts of the broader community and pays tribute to the significant contribution the Australian public makes to the overall fundraising effort; and
(c) the heroic efforts of the women, men and their families who have experienced the breast cancer journey.
(Notice given 12 October 2015.)
Time allotted—50 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Vamvakinou—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MRS GRIGGS: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) the Government is investing in significant new capabilities for the Australian Defence Force (ADF);
(b) these capabilities include but are not limited to the acquisition of Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft, Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft, 58 more Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighters and two new Boeing C-17A Globemaster III transport aircraft; and
(c) the former Government's cuts to Defence funding led to 119 projects being delayed, 43 degraded and 8 cancelled; and
(2) notes the importance of providing our ADF personnel the equipment and capabilities they need to perform their roles.
(Notice given 16 June 2015.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mrs Griggs 5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MS MCGOWAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) inconsistencies exist between federal and state court procedures in relation to the direct cross examination of a victim by an accused person;
(b) specific state laws are in place to prevent an accused person from directly cross examining their victim in sexual offence cases and, in some states, family violence protection order cases—in such cases, an accused person must have legal representation to cross examine the victim;
(c) in family law cases nationally, there are no legislative protections to prevent an alleged perpetrator of violence who is unrepresented, from directly cross examining their victim; and
(d) intimate partner violence is the top risk factor for death, disability and illness in women aged 15 to 44—the added fear and trauma of cross examination by an alleged or known perpetrator of violence is a continuation of violence; and
(2) calls on the Government to amend family law legislation to ensure that in situations of family violence, an unrepresented litigant alleged or known to have perpetrated violence is unable to directly cross-examine the victim.
(Notice given 13 October 2015.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm.
Speech time limits—
Ms McGowan—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
():
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2015 is the final instalment in a package of legislative reforms that implements the government's election commitments to ensure a more effective and efficient onshore protection status determination process.
Following the passage of the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014 (the Legacy Act) in December last year and the Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Act 2015 in March this year, this bill amends the statutory framework in the Migration Act relating to the determination process for persons seeking protection on complementary protection grounds.
Complementary protection is the term used to describe a category of protection for people who are not refugees, as defined in the Migration Act, but who cannot be returned to their receiving country (that is, their country of nationality or country of former habitual residence if they do not have a nationality) because there is a real risk that they would suffer a certain type of harm that would engage Australia's international non-refoulement (or non-return) obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
Specifically, this bill will amend the Migration Act to more closely align the statutory complementary protection framework with the statutory refugee framework, as recently inserted by the Legacy Act.
Without these amendments, there is an inconsistency between the two frameworks. In particular, a person who would be refused protection under the current refugee framework for one of the new exceptions to the refugee test relating to internal relocation alternatives, effective protection measures or behaviour modification could satisfy the complementary protection test because those exceptions are not yet included in the complementary protection framework. This bill addresses this inconsistency, and in doing so, will restore Australia's intended interpretation of Australia's complementary protection obligations.
To be clear, as is the case under the current statutory complementary protection framework,non-refoulement obligations will not be engaged in every case in which a person claims that they will suffer some type of harm if returned to another country. This bill will not alter the requirement that in each case there must be substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned, there is a real risk that a person will suffer significant harm of a particular type as contained in the relevant human rights treaties, namely:
Rather, the bill will clarify the interpretation of various concepts used to determine whether a person will face a real risk of suffering significant harm so as to give rise to a non-refoulement obligation.
This is now necessary as there have been instances of several persons having been found to meet the complementary protection criterion on a wide variety of grounds, such as selling adult movies and drinking or supplying alcohol in countries which severely punish those activities, despite the fact that the government, consistent with our international obligations, did not intend for such cases to be covered by the legislation. There have also been several persons who have been found to meet the complementary protection criteria where they have been involved in serious crimes in their home countries, or are fleeing their home countries due to their association with criminal gangs. Therefore, in tightening the various tests that determine whether there is a real risk that a person will suffer significant harm, this bill will diminish the likelihood of such persons being granted Australia's protection.
The bill will clarify that, in relation to complementary protection, a real risk of significant harm needs to relate to all areas of a receiving country. This amendment aligns the criteria for complementary protection with the existing criteria under the refugee framework in the Migration Act.
In the case of complementary protection claims, a person who could relocate to a safe part of the receiving country upon their return to that country would be found not to face a real risk of significant harm. In considering whether a person can relocate to another area of the receiving country, a decision maker is required to take into account whether the person can safely and legally access an internal flight alternative such that it would mitigate a 'real risk' of 'significant harm' to the person. This test is consistent with international jurisprudence on Australia's non-refoulement obligations under the ICCPR and the CAT.
The bill also amends the provision relating to a generalised risk to put beyond doubt that complementary protection is only available where the real risk of significant harm is faced by a person personally, rather than being an indiscriminate risk of harm faced by the population in the receiving country generally.
This amendment is not intended to elevate the level of risk which must be demonstrated to satisfy the 'real risk' test under complementary protection grounds. Rather, and consistent with international jurisprudence on the interpretation of the ICCPR and the CAT, this amendment clarifies that, while the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violation of human rights in the relevant country is a relevant consideration, such circumstances of themselves will not meet the necessary threshold of constituting a 'real risk' of 'significant harm' for the purposes of complementary protection.
There may be occasions, however, where levels of generalised violence in a country can become so dangerous, consistent or targeted towards groups as to pose significant harm to individuals. It may be possible in such circumstances that the level of risk faced by a person in an area of generalised violence may crystallise into a personal, direct and real risk of harm in their case. This amendment ensures that such issues are taken into consideration in the analysis of a person's complementary protection claims.
This bill will amend the provision relating to state protection measures when determining whether a person faces the relevant risk of harm relating to complementary protection to clarify that a person will not face a real risk of significant harm if effective protection measures are available to the person through state or non-state actors in a receiving country.
This amendment aligns the criteria for complementary protection, relating to state protection measures, with the equivalent provisions in the new refugee framework and makes clear that, when determining whether a person engages Australia's complementary protection obligations, consideration must be given to the level of effective protection available in the receiving country to ascertain if such protection will mitigate the risk of harm towards the person. The intention of this amendment is to clarify, consistent with Australia's non-refoulementobligations under the ICCPR and the CAT, that the level of protection offered by a country to a person must only be sufficient so as to mitigate a 'real risk' of 'significant harm' to them, rather than provide them with 'perfect' or preferred circumstances under which the person might wish to live.
The bill will also introduce a provision to exclude a person from complementary protection who could take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour so as to avoid a real risk of significant harm in a receiving country, other than a modification that would conflict with the person's innate or immutable characteristics, or which is fundamental to the person's identity or conscience.
The aim of this provision, an equivalent of which exists in the refugee framework, is to reflect that some harm could be brought about by a person's own voluntary actions—by, for example, breaking the law upon their return to the country—and that in some circumstances it is reasonable to expect a person not to engage in such actions so as to avoid a real risk of harm.
To be clear, while this bill makes several changes to the framework for assessing protection claims on complementary protection grounds, it does not, however, affect the substance of Australia's adherence to its non- refoulement obligations. Australia's non-refoulement obligations under the ICCPR and the CAT are absolute and cannot be derogated from. Therefore, even if a person is considered ineligible to be granted a protection visa—on character-related grounds, for example—Australia would still be bound by its non-refoulement obligations not to remove that person to their receiving country in respect of which there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the person's removal to that country, there would be a real risk that the person will suffer significant harm. The government will continue to comply with these obligations and Australia remains bound by them as a matter of international law.
Further, this bill does not amend the risk threshold for assessing Australia's non-refoulementobligations under the ICCPR and the CAT. The 'real chance' risk threshold for assessing complementary protection in the Migration Act will remain intact. It currently applies to both the refugee and complementary protection contexts and is not amended in either context by this bill.
I wish to foreshadow that the government will no longer be proceeding with the amendments in the Migration Amendment (Regaining Control Over Australia's Protection Obligations) Bill 2013 (the Regaining Control Bill). The House would be aware that the Regaining Control Bill was introduced into the parliament in December 2013 and has remained on the Senate Notice Paper since this time. The Regaining Control Bill seeks to repeal the complementary protection provisions from the Migration Act. Consequently, Australia's non-refoulement obligations would be managed through an administrative process.
In determining to discharge the Regaining Control Bill from the Senate Notice Paper, the government has considered the concerns raised by the parliament and its relevant committees on certain aspects of the bill. On balance the government considers that the best way forward is for the complementary protection provisions to remain in the Migration Act but be modified slightly as per the terms of this bill. This will ensure that Australia continues to align with the practices of other like-minded countries, including New Zealand, Canada, the United States of America and many European countries.
Since the introduction of complementary protection into Australia's protection visa processes in March 2012, various judicial interpretation issues have arisen in the current legislative framework, which has resulted in the broadening of Australia's complementary protection obligations in a way that goes beyond current international interpretations. As a result, there have been instances in which an individual's claims have been found to meet the complementary protection criterion despite the fact that the government, consistent with its international obligations, did not intend for the legislation to cover such cases.
It is therefore necessary to restore the intended interpretation of the complementary protection provisions in the Migration Act so as to ensure that only those who are in need of Australia's protection will be eligible for a protection visa on complementary protection grounds.
This bill also makes several technical amendments to the statutory framework in the Migration Act to ensure that the existing provisions in the Migration Act work as originally intended and will not change the substance of the amended provisions.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I support the passage of these three bills, the Customs Depot Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2015, the Import Processing Charges Amendment Bill 2015 and the Customs Amendment (Fees and Charges) Bill 2015. This package of bills, which relate primarily to customs processes and charges associated with trade related activity, are due to commence on 1 January 2016. The changes contained within these bills were included in the 2015-16 budget as part of the response to the joint review of border fees, charges and taxes, commonly known as 'the fees review', undertaken by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Customs and the Department of Agriculture and involving consultation with interested stakeholders.
The fees review focused on identifying where border-charging arrangements could be improved to better support future border operations and outcomes for industry. This was done with a view to ensuring that, as far as possible, full costs were recovered for the operation and administration of these schemes by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The fees review considered changes to current charges, fees and taxes, as well as new approaches to charging in the future. It covered charges levied by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and some import related fees and charges applied by the Department of Agriculture. The fees review covered current major charging arrangements at the border, including import-processing and passenger movement charges levied by Australian Customs and Border Protection; import related fees and charges recovered by the Department of Agriculture, such as full import declaration charges, container charges and registration fees; visa application charges administered by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection; and current and future cost-recovery-based charging for services, particularly those resulting from industry demand factors. The changes contained within the Customs Depot Licensing Charges Amendment Bill, the Import Processing Charges Amendment Bill and the Customs Amendment (Fees and Charges) Bill are designed to generate $107.6 million over the forward estimates.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection processes and assesses applications, issues licences and manages the compliance framework for warehouse and depot licence holders and for customs brokers. Cost recovery charges are imposed on individuals and businesses holding or applying for these licences. All consignments imported into Australia are assessed by the department to ensure that Australian government requirements are met, and importers are required to make an import declaration for air, sea and post consignments valued above $1,000 and air and sea consignments valued at $1,000 or less.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection undertakes a number of activities on import declarations to ensure that the border and community protection risks are managed appropriately. These activities include cargo examinations and inspections; processing of import declarations and documents receipting; design and development of profiles and targeted compliance activities; analysis of intelligence leading to strategic, operational or tactical services in relation to import processing; investigation and prosecution of serious breaches of legislation; provision of advice to industry on the import and export environment; and determination of risks associated with transactions, threats and border controls.
Import processing charges, or IPCs, are generally paid with other mandatory government charges such as import duties or the goods and services tax. Import declarations are lodged within the integrated cargo system and identified charges attributable to the department and Agriculture are also collected through the system. The agricultural proportion of the charges is remitted to the Department of Agriculture.
The mechanism for imposing the various fees and charges also differs across the licensing categories. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection undertakes a number of activities in relation to licence application processing and ongoing compliance monitoring in licensed brokers and establishments. These include: desktop assessments of applications; site inspections of warehouse and depot facilities; interviews with prospective broker licence applicants; the granting of licences; renewal processing and invoicing; an ongoing compliance program of site visits for warehouses and depots; ongoing monitoring for broker licensing and corporate support and infrastructure in support of licensing staff systems and processes; and, of course, fit-and-proper person checks.
Although licensing fees were originally imposed to recover the full cost of administering the licensing activities, the fees review identified a shortfall in the recovery of costs within some programs amounting to approximately 30 per cent of customs broker charges. Licensing fees have remained fairly static since their introduction in 1997, which has resulted in under-recovery of costs and revenue associated with the operation and administration of these particular charges and this scheme by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. In 2013-14, the department received $242.4 million in revenue through import processing charges, which was approximately $10.3 million less than the $252.7 million in expenses allocated to IPC related activities. This is a classic example of the under-recovery of costs associated with some of these charges.
The Customs Amendment (Fees and Charges) Bill and the Customs Depot Licensing Charges Amendment Bill will consolidate all licensing charges into a single act, with the aim of simplifying the legislation, and will introduce new charges to better align the changes and the charges with cost-recovery guidelines. The new charges include a warehouse licensing application fee of $3,000 up to a maximum of $4½ thousand; a warehouse licence variation charge of $300 up to a maximum of $450; and a customs broker licence application charge of between $130 and $195 for individuals and between $1,300 and $1,950 for businesses. This is aimed at, hopefully, reducing the cost burden of licensing programs and ensuring applicants are better prepared prior to applying for a licence.
The Customs Amendment (Fees and Charges) Bill will introduce a small fee increase for an import declaration of imported goods and the Customs Depot Licensing Charges Amendment Bill will increase the price of existing warehouse and custom broker and licensing charges in line with cost-recovery guidelines. The Import Processing Charges Amendment Bill will make three major changes. The first is to broaden the cost base for import and warehouse declaration charges by recovering the cost of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's cargo and trade related reform initiatives. The second is to simplify the charging arrangements for sea cargo, air cargo and postal import and warehouse declarations by imposing the same charge regardless of the method of importation. The final change is to introduce a standard higher fee for documentary import and warehouse declarations, recognising the additional work required to process documentary declarations.
In conclusion, Labor support this package and associated changes, which are in line with our continued commitment to maintaining a responsive, efficient and robust customs authority and to ensure that government cost-recovery guidelines are being met in the administration and operation of these important schemes by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
I thank the member for his contribution to the debate on these three bills. These bills will give effect to the changes proposed as part of the joint review of border fees, charges and taxes. The review focused on identifying where the government's border charges could be consolidated and improved to better support Australia's future border operations. The bills increase and restructure import processing charges and introduce new charges in the warehouse and customs broker licensing regimes. The increased and new charges will provide critical funding for improvements in trade and travel facilitation and will support improved security at Australia's borders. The changes strike the right balance between supporting Australia's international competitiveness and ensuring the cost of maintaining integrity of our border is appropriately shared with those who use it.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I am pleased to be speaking on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cost of Living Concession) Bill 2015. This new cost-of-living concession bill has arisen because the South Australian Labor government has provided welcome support for pensioners, concession card holders and other low-income Australians. It consists of a $200 per year payment to help pensioners and concession card holders with cost-of-living pressures. This bill introduces a measure to exclude the cost-of-living concession payment made by the South Australian government from being assessed as income under the social security and veterans' affairs income tests—so Labor supports this bill. We support the bill because it is good for South Australian pensioners.
Let me say on the record today that we very much welcome the South Australian Labor government's decision to stand up for pensioners and vulnerable Australians. We know that this Liberal government certainly never would. We know the Liberal government here in Canberra has cut money to pensioners, and this is the reason why this new payment is being made to pensioners in the first place. Let us get the facts right about South Australia.
Mr Williams interjecting—
Let us let us get the facts right about what this member, in South Australia, actually voted for. He voted for a cut to the indexation of the pension. Thank you to the member for Hindmarsh for his interjections, so I can remind all of the voters in Hindmarsh that he voted for a cut to the pension that would have amounted to an $80-a-week cut over 10 years. That is what the member for Hindmarsh voted for. That is exactly what he voted for. He also voted to increase the age pension age to 70. I hope the voters in Hindmarsh are listening and that they know that the member they voted for at the last election broke the promise that was made before the election that there would be no changes to pensions. The pension indexation cuts were voted for by each and every member of the Liberal and National parties, including the member for Hindmarsh.
The reason we are here today is that the Liberal government's 2014 budget, which was supported by the member for Hindmarsh, included a cut of $1.3 billion—$1.3 billion ripped out of the pockets of pensioners. We know what that would have meant if the South Australian Labor government had not helped pensioners out. It would have meant a cut to the concessions that pensioners rely on for essential services like electricity, gas, transport fares and council rates. All pensioners would have been worse off because of the Abbott-Turnbull government's cuts in the 2014 budget that the member for Hindmarsh supported. I see that the member has gone a bit quiet.
You aren't worth listening to!
He wants another go! Keep interjecting, because I will keep reminding people what you voted for—that you wanted each and every one of the pensioners in Hindmarsh to be $80 a week worse off. The recent cut in the assets test also went through this House with the vote of the member for Hindmarsh. There was no warning before the last election. That was yet another broken promise by the member for Hindmarsh. Don't worry: all the pensioners in Hindmarsh know all about it.
Last year, we had a different Treasurer who liked to go on about lifters and leaners. No doubt the member for Hindmarsh agreed with the previous Treasurer that somehow the pensioners in Hindmarsh were leaners and deserved to have their pension concessions cut. The South Australian Labor government did not agree with that view. Labor did not agree with that view. We think that pensioners deserve support. That is why Labor governments do things to help pensioners and not the reverse.
Everybody here wants to try to forget that the Liberals tried to cut $1.3 billion from pensioner concessions. But I remind the member for Hindmarsh and every single member of the Liberal and National parties that pensioners have not forgotten. They have not forgotten. They know that each and every Liberal and National Party member of this parliament voted for the $80-a-week cut to the pension over the next 10 years with reductions to pension indexation. Pensioners will not forget that. They will not forget that this government wants to increase the age pension age to 70, which would mean that this country had the oldest pension age in the developed world.
Pensioners also will not forget that this Liberal government tried to cut the deeming thresholds for pensioners, which is another way to cut the pension. The member for Hindmarsh voted for that as well. Pensioners certainly will not forget the latest Liberal Party betrayal, which was the cut to the pension assets test. Three hundred and thirty thousand pensioners across Australia, quite a few of them in the member for Hindmarsh's electorate, are all going to be worse off because of this latest cut to the pension.
Labor opposed these measures. We understand how important it is to support pensioners. We understand just how critical it is, wherever pensioners are living. Whether it is Hindmarsh or in other parts of Australia, pensioners know that the only party that they can rely on is the Labor Party. It was the Labor government that delivered the most significant increase to the pension since the age pension was first introduced, more than 100 years ago, and it is only Labor that will make sure that pensioners are better off.
Pensioners understand that they have been completely lied to by Liberal Party and National Party members, including the member for Hindmarsh, who told them before the last election that they would have no changes to their pension. Plainly, that is not true. Pensioners in South Australia are very pleased that the South Australian Labor government has provided this new $200 payment to pensioners. Labor, in the federal parliament, welcomes this measure and it also welcomes the exclusion of this income from the means test for social security and veterans' affairs payments.
I support all of the comments made by the member for Jagajaga in respect of this matter. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cost of Living Concession) Bill 2015. As the member for Jagajaga has just pointed out, Labor will be supporting this bill. The bill, effectively, excludes the cost-of-living concession payment made by the South Australian government from being assessed as income under the social security and veterans' affairs income test.
As has just been pointed out by the member for Jagajaga, and write quite rightly so, in their first budget after the 2013 election, the coalition government abolished the National Partnership Agreement on Certain Concessions for Pensioner Concession Card and Seniors Card Holders. They did so without, at any time in the lead up to the 2013 election, telling pensioners across Australia that they would be doing that. They did so after having told pensioners and given them the assurance that there would be no changes made to pensions in this country. Yet, on coming to office, one of the first things they did was cut payments and support measures for pensioners in a range of areas—which I will get to in a moment—particularly with respect to the national partnership agreement that had been in place since 1993.
This was an agreement that had been honoured in the past not only by Labor governments but also by the Howard government throughout all of its term in office and, at no stage, had the Howard government suggested that it should not honour that agreement. Yet this coalition government, on coming to office, not only walked away from the agreement but also, in doing so, walked away from pensioners and hid behind the pathetic excuse that the concessions funded were state government responsibilities. The member for Hindmarsh, which the member for Jagajaga quite rightly alluded to, not only supported the cuts made but also stood up here and defended the cuts being made, saying that these were responsibilities of the state governments. It is notable that there is no single member of the coalition that even wants to speak to this bill.
Let me go to the background of where the $1.3 billion that was cut by the coalition arises from, because the national partnership agreement, as I said a moment ago, goes back to 1993. The origins of it are this—and these are not my words, these are the words of the Parliamentary Library:
The NPA had its origins in a decision by the Australian Government to extend access to the Pensioner Concession Card (PCC) to all pensioners, including part-rate pensioners, from 1993.Eligibility for concessions provided by the state and territory governments is linked to the PCC. Therefore the cohort of pensioners eligible for concessions expanded. Recognising this, the Australian Government agreed to provide funds to the states and territories to cover some of their increased costs from 1993. The formal 1993 agreement allocated set amounts to each state and territory, to be indexed and adjusted for growth in state pensioner populations over time. The Australian Government funding would be in the form of a Specific Purpose Payment, requiring states and territories to provide an agreed set of concessions on essential services to all pensioners.
That makes it absolutely clear that the payments were made to the states because the federal government wanted to expand the program.
In wanting to expand the program, the states quite rightly said, 'We are happy to do that if the federal government funds the expansion.' The federal government at the time did so and the states secured that commitment through an agreement—and 20 years later, this coalition government is the first government to walk away from that agreement. It is a shameful act given that this was a clearly set out and negotiated arrangement between the federal government and the states. For members like the member for Hindmarsh, and other South Australians who have come into this place, to try to claim that these were state government responsibilities not only shows that they were prepared to walk away from the pensioners of South Australia but shows their complete ignorance of the background to this concession payment.
The South Australian government, to its credit, introduced a $200-a-year payment to offset the federal government's cuts. The payment will offset cost-of-living pressures such as council rates and electricity, gas and water bills. Previously, council rate support was provided through a direct concession that appeared on council rate notices each year—an amount of $190. In its first year, the cuts meant a hit of about $28 million for South Australia, with that amount projected to rise each subsequent year. The state government decided that a better way of managing this matter would be to provide a direct payment of $200 to the eligible recipients each year and allow them to manage their finances as they saw fit. If a person has a pensioner concession card, a Veterans' Affairs card, a low-income healthcare card or a Commonwealth seniors healthcare card, they will be able to access the $200—or part thereof, depending on their income. It will also go to people who are on Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, widow allowance, youth allowance, partner allowance, parenting payment, bereavement payment or special benefits, as well as to Community Development Employment Program recipients, ABSTUDY recipients, Austudy recipients and people who are on the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme. That is my understanding of who may be eligible for the $200-a-year payment.
In the past, because the state government directly funded the concession through the $190 that went to council rates, the $190 was not assessed for income purposes for the recipients of that payment. Because it is now a direct payment, we need to ensure that that continues to be the case. In other words, recipients should not be penalised for receiving the support as a direct payment when it is replacing a cut made by the federal coalition government to support that was previously not considered as income. This bill does exactly that and of course we support it.
The bill also goes to the heart of the attack on pensioners by this government. As I mentioned, the member for Jagajaga has quite rightly pointed out the range of cuts this government has tried to introduce—in most cases unsuccessfully—since coming to office with a direct impact on the income of pensioners in this country. For South Australia this is an important issue, because South Australia has an ageing population. The figures suggest that there are more older people in South Australia than in most other states. This is especially true of Hindmarsh. I am well aware, through my discussions with my good friend and former colleague, the former member for Hindmarsh, Steve Georganas, that the pensioner community in Hindmarsh is considerable—and they were very concerned about this cut when it was made.
It was not just the pensioner concessions. If it were, the government might have been able to sweep it under the carpet. The truth is, this was a government that tried to balance its budget on the back of the lowest income families in this country, and that includes pensioners, many of whom really found it tough to make ends meet. The $190 cut to their council rates has now been replaced by the $200 a year payment from the state government. I have spoken with some of those people in my own electorate at a one-on-one level, and they are very genuine when they say that it will make a difference to their income levels. I can recall the debate in South Australia when the state government decided to make the payment and the welcome relief that was clearly evident across the pensioner sector as a result of the state government having agreed to make the payment. In the first year the South Australian government simply funded the $190, but then they introduced the payment as an ongoing measure, and that brought the relief that people were looking for.
This goes to the heart of how pensioners have been treated in this country, and certainly in South Australia, by the federal coalition government. We not only saw the cuts made as a result of the $1.3 billion being slashed from the states for this purpose but then we saw this government try to increase the Medicare co-payment, starting at $7 and then going to $5, and then it put a freeze on the doctors' MBS payments. All of these measures go to the heart of the income of pensioners. We acknowledge time and time again in this place that our pensioners, for one reason or another, quite legitimately have to go to the doctor on a regular basis. Every time they do, these additional costs impact on their ability to continue to make ends meet, yet this government decided that that was something it wanted to do. Then by changing the assets test, supported by the Greens, some 330,000 current pensioners also had their incomes affected. Again, I have had people contact my office, and my constituents have contacted me, saying that this is not fair and it will affect their income.
We have a government which, whichever way you turn, has decided that pensioners are easy pickings. Can I say to the members opposite, to the Member for Hindmarsh, who is sitting in the chamber right now, that I am sure he knows full well that the pensioners in his electorate are not happy with the way this government has treated them. They are not happy with the fact that, prior to the election, they were told that there would be no cuts made and ever since we have seen one form of cut after another being made; they are not happy with the fact that they are being asked to tighten their belts to find cuts out of their meagre income each year whilst the big end of town is allowed to go scot-free and continue in many cases to make huge profits and pay very little tax; and they are not happy with the fact that this government is playing off one sector of the community against another.
I want to conclude with this comment: the state government in South Australia, the Weatherill government, to its credit worked through this issue methodically and carefully. There was a long debate about it at the time—it went on for several months—and the state government decided that it would best manage this program by allocating a direct payment of $200. It did so because it knew that there were some current anomalies in the system of who was entitled to council concession rates and who was not, particularly with respect to those people who might have been living in what we call housing trust homes in South Australia. It came to the conclusion that the fairest way to support pensioners, concession card holders and welfare recipients in South Australia was to give them a direct payment of $200 and allow them to choose how they would use it to offset their cost-of-living expenses. Of course it is a direct payment to them, and the thing we do not want to see is that money being treated as income, which in turn will affect their income. If it is assessed as income it will affect the income they might receive as their pension payment and the like. As the member for Jagajaga has quite rightly said, we support this measure because it simply puts into effect the intent of the $200 payment.
Finally, I will say this: not one of the coalition members opposite has decided to come in and speak on this motion. I am not surprised about that because the truth of the matter is that they would be speaking on a matter which they instigated and which they are responsible for—a $1.3 billion cut to pensioners across this country. But it also highlights, in my view, the fact that, whilst they might publicly say they care about pensioners, they do not even have the courage to come in here and speak about pensioners or take a stand on behalf of them, and that is shameful. With those comments, once again, we support this measure.
This Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cost of Living Concession) Bill 2015 will exclude the cost-of-living concession payment made by the South Australian government from being assessed under the social security and veterans' affairs income test. I thank all the members opposite for their contributions and for their admonitions that someone courageously speak, which I am very happy to do. But I would note that, as a preliminary matter, this a beneficial measure for certain people—
Minister, you have to.
Well, indeed, but it still takes a bit of courage. This is a beneficial measure for certain people who will be receiving new payments. You might have been confused, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to whether this is a beneficial measure, after hearing members opposite, but it is indeed a beneficial measure. If I might, just by way of summing up, explain why.
From September 2015, the South Australian government is introducing a new cost-of-living concession payment. That payment will replace the South Australian council rates concession, which was previously a discount on rates bills. That measure ceased on 1 July 2015. Under the old South Australian council rates concession, eligible people received a $190 per annum rates discount. Now, the new cost-of-living concession payment that will be operative in South Australia will be a direct payment to eligible people rather than offering, as was the case under the old system, a discount off people's rates bills, which was the previous way the South Australian council rates concession operated.
There are two elements to the new South Australian cost-of-living concession payment. The first element of the cost-of-living concession payment provides an annual $200 direct payment per household to pensioners, other income support recipients and low-income earners who are homeowner-occupiers. Self-funded retirees in receipt of a Commonwealth seniors card will receive an annual $100 direct payment per household under the cost-of-living concession payment in South Australia. The second element of the South Australian cost-of-living concession payment is that support has been extended to include tenants, whereas the previous council rates concession was solely limited to homeowner-occupiers. Under the cost-of-living concession payment, pensioners, other income support recipients and low-income earners who are tenants will be able to receive an annual $100 per household direct payment. So, well done to South Australia in undertaking its obligations in this regard.
The Commonwealth, providing this income test exemption, the subject of the present bill, is consistently acting with the income test exemption that was put in place for the Western Australian cost-of-living rebate scheme in 2012—in fact, a scheme I remember well because it was enacted by an excellent Treasurer at the time!
Self-praise is no recommendation!
I think, members opposite, it was actually Mike Nahan, at that stage, so don't get too excited. If an income test exemption was not granted for the cost-of-living concession payment then some recipients of the payment, in particular part-rate pensioners, could be disadvantaged compared to current arrangements. They could receive the similar level of assistance from the South Australian government via direct payment rather than as a discount off their rates bills, but the Australian government pension would be reduced. So, essentially, the bill exempts the new payment from being assessed as income for social security and veterans' affairs entitlements purposes.
If I might just roughly summarise: the previous South Australian system, being a discount, never fell into the assessable category of income for social security and veterans' affairs entitlements purposes, that having been transformed into a direct payment could possibly have been assessed as income; this bill ensures that it will not be and is thereby a beneficial bill to pensioners in South Australia. The bill ensures that people's social security and veterans' affairs income support payments are not affected by receipt of the new payment and, therefore, that they receive the full benefit of the cost-of-living concession payment that the South Australian government has enacted. Again, I thank all the members opposite for their contributions to this debate.
Question agreed to.
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.
Labor will support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Low Income Supplement) Bill 2015 today, despite recognising, I have to say, that this is yet another broken promise from the Abbott-Turnbull government. Before the last election, the Liberal-National party promised to keep all of the payments associated with the clean energy future package; yet today the Liberals are abolishing one of the payments that formed part of the compensation that came with Labor's reforms to move Australia to a low-carbon economy. This supplement is paid to around 7,000 low-income Australians who do not receive the same level of assistance as other families through tax cuts or social security payments that were introduced to offset the average cost of the carbon price. It is also worth acknowledging that welfare organisations like the Australian Council of Social Service have arrived at a similar position on this measure. In a media release earlier this year, ACOSS stated that 'it is appropriate that this supplement is abolished'. ACOSS noted that the supplement had not been widely taken up since its introduction in 2012.
As we have always said, we will support sensible savings when the government puts them forward. We do understand the task of fiscal repair and we will take decisions that improve our nation's finances when appropriate. But I add that we will only do so when the savings do not offend our fundamental sense of fairness. Labor will support the bill.
This is a 2015 budget measure that was previously introduced in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015. It is being reintroduced in this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Low Income Supplement) Bill 2015. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015 was, sadly, negatived in the Senate on 9 September 2015. I thank the member for Jagajaga for her contribution. No doubt it spells the beginning of a very convivial and constructive relationship between us on savings measures which invariably will have to be found inside the portfolio over which I now have stewardship.
I think that this is a very good example of a savings measure where there is excellent reason for bipartisan support for the removal of a supplement. The low-income supplement was to cease from 1 July 2017 and there were very few claims for the low-income supplement, as has been noted by the member for Jagajaga. Very few claims have been received and it was administratively a complex claim to administer. Upon interrogation upon assuming government, it was fairly clear to us on this side of the House that the service delivery costs based on the estimated take-up for administering this payment themselves exceeded the financial benefit gained by eligible individuals. So, with the abolition of the carbon tax, the assistance, in the view of the government, was no longer appropriate or required, particularly given that the administration costs actually exceeded the amount of money that was to be applied to eligible individuals. Ceasing the low-income supplement is part of an important suite of budget measures to support the sustainability of the social security system and the nation's budget.
If I might offer the House some slightly more detailed explanation as to the administrative waste that was being occasioned had this supplement been continued, the measure itself that we have before the House in this bill will deliver savings of $42.9 million over the forward estimates. As has been noted, the program had a very low take-up rate and was administratively a complex payment. Around 6,000 people are likely to no longer receive the payment from 1 July 2017. Around 70 per cent of those 6,000 people who qualify for the payment will continue to receive the energy supplement with their FTB payments.
Based on the original estimates of what were expected to be higher take-up rates, the Department of Human Services receives around $19 million per annum to deliver the program. If the program were to continue with $19 million per annum appropriated to deliver the program, recipients were only set, on our estimates, to be provided with around $2.5 million in payments a year. Had this payment been allowed to continue and were it not to be removed—and I acknowledge the bipartisan support of members opposite—we would have been putting the taxpayer to the expense of $19 million per annum to administer a program that handed out $2.5 million per annum, and that is a situation which is absurd. So it is quite proper that this be removed. Service delivery costs and administering the payment far exceeded the financial benefit gained collectively by the individuals who were eligible.
The supplement, which was originally included in the household assistance package, we might add, is excluded from any commitment to keep current pension and fortnightly rates while scrapping the carbon tax, as it was always an annual claimable payment of $300. It was never a regular fortnightly payment; it was an annual, lump-sum payment. With the abolition of the carbon tax, as has been noted in this House many times, households are, on average, $550 better off and the assistance that is to be removed in this bill is no longer required, and it is, of course, to the enduring benefit of the Australian taxpayer that they not provide $19 million a year in administration to pay out $2.5 million a year in payments. I certainly recommend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to, Mr Wilkie dissenting.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015 seeks to simplify the existing compliance framework and assist job seekers in understanding what is required of them when they receive income support. This is achievable by renaming all short-term financial penalties as no-show no-pay failures. This language is straightforward and paints a clear picture to job seekers. The message is clear and simple. Job seekers now know that, when on income support, if you fail to show up or participate or undertake your mutual obligations to seek employment, you should not expect to receive income support.
The obligation placed on job seekers to accept suitable employment or undertake training confirms the status of the social security system in Australia—that is, Australia's income support system is intended to help or act as support for those in our community who face genuine difficulty in obtaining paid employment. The income support system is not designed to be an alternative for those who simply refuse to work. This bill maintains all existing protections for vulnerable job seekers, including the Department of Human Services carrying out conversations with job seekers and properly evaluating and assessing if a fair and genuine excuse exists. A conversation may seem trivial but often leads to a much clearer picture of the individual circumstances of the job seeker. Naturally, rights of appeal still exist for those who disagree with the position of the department. More important than all of this is the discretion available to employment service providers. This refers to the ability of employment service providers to determine whether or not to enforce compliance measures or utilise other strategies to re-engage job seekers. This discretionary policy is crucial in ensuring the job plan that has been developed to get an unemployed person into the workforce is tailored to the individual.
The objective and main focus of income support is, of course, to get as many people as possible off government support and into meaningful paid employment. As has been said on numerous occasions, the best form of welfare is employment. Getting more unemployed people into the workforce is a major priority of this government. This government has committed $6.8 billion over four years to encourage job seekers into the workforce. The $24.5 million provided for the reforms proposed in this bill is a small but crucial investment into the entire Australian social security system. This funding is about getting people into work and off government support. It is about changing community attitudes and the attitudes of many unemployed. It is about enforcing mutual obligations, but, importantly, it is about getting people into employment.
Employment not only means income. It bring self-worth and confidence. It brings choices and opportunities. As I have stated numerous times in this House, this government is committed to assisting and supporting people to obtain long-term sustainable employment. I am committed to this because I am conscious of the benefits of work not only to an individual but for their families and the broader community.
When I spoke to the 2014 bill in October last year, I stated then that Australians are generous by nature and always willing and ready to put their hands in their pockets to help those in need. This government strongly believes in a hand up, not a handout. We are always there to give a hand up, but what we need to ensure is that we do not fall into the trap of giving unsustainable handouts to receive nothing in return.
The measures within this bill are not unreasonable. We are simply asking those individuals looking for work and receiving income support to fulfil their mutual obligations. We are asking them to not only honour the Australian taxpayer and the role of employment agencies but help themselves by increasing their chances of finding work. This legislation is not about penalising those genuinely requiring a helping hand during difficult times. It is about making sure the right thing is done by those receiving income support, insofar as doing the right thing for themselves, their families, their self-esteem and their community. I commend this bill to the House.
This bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015, is more of the same from the government. We now have a new Prime Minister, a new leader, but unfortunately we have the same old policies being put forward by the same tired government with the same speakers coming out time and time again, reiterating what they have said many times in the past. This proposed legislation seeks to put in place measures that were announced in the 2015 budget to strengthen the job seeker compliance framework by providing stronger and more immediate consequences for job seekers who do not meet their mutual obligations.
This bill seeks to allow a job seeker's participation payments to be immediately suspended if the job seeker fails to enter a job plan. On the face of it, that sounds very reasonable. A person should immediately enter into a job plan. But what sort of consideration is undertaken in that job plan? Is it something that the job seeker has input into, or is it something that they are basically told they have to do? I hear regularly that a person's background, training, skills and interests are not considered in this type of job plan. The consequences of this is that you are sending people off to interviews and setting them up for failure. They go to the interview and they are rejected, even if it is a mutual obligation such as the Work for the Dole program, for instance. If that person is not suitable, if that person does not have the personal requirements that are needed for that job, if that person does not have the skills that will be needed for the job, they will be told, 'Thank you for coming to the interview, but we do not need you. You will not be suitable for this job.'
I will give an example. I heard recently of an aged-care provider in the Shortland electorate to whom a number of participants for a Work for the Dole program were referred. An aged-care facility is a place where there are a lot of vulnerable people. One of the people that were referred was somebody that had a criminal record, and it was not a criminal record for something minor; it was for a major assault. This was a person that demonstrated that they would be unsuitable to work in an aged-care facility. But the person's job plan had been put in place, and the job plan identified Work for the Dole, and the JSA identified that it was appropriate to refer this person to an aged-care provider. This demonstrates very graphically that the detail that goes into designing a job plan is not sufficient. It is all about getting people back to work. It is not about considering the long-term benefits for that person who is a job seeker. It is just a matter of referring a person to a job and saying, 'Welfare's better than work,' rather than looking at why that person has been a long-term beneficiary of welfare.
The reasons for a person receiving welfare are very complex. For people unable to secure a job, people who have been unemployed for very long periods of time, it takes more than going to an employment provider and having the provider say: 'We're going to develop and implement a plan for you. This is what you're going to do.' It takes a lot more than that to get a person into work. You need to identify the barriers that prevent a person from actually accessing a job. You need to work out why that person has been unemployed for such a long period of time. Once you have identified that reason, then you need to look at the steps that need to be taken along the way to get a person to the point where they will be employable and where they can actually enter the workforce. It is absolutely pointless to refer people off to interviews and to develop a job plan that does not actually look at all the issues. All that is happening is that that job seeker is being set up for failure, and it is costing the government money because the employment provider can say that they are doing this work.
A penalty will also be borne by the job seeker if it is determined that they acted in an inappropriate manner during a meeting. That can be imposed as well. The bill also allows a job seeker's participation payment to be suspended when a job seeker fails to participate in an activity without a reasonable excuse. It would be suspended from the instalment period in which the failure is determined, not from the following fortnight as is currently the case. I have had numerous constituents come to me and tell me that their payment has been suspended. I had one person come to tell me that their payment had been suspended because their car broke down on the way to an interview. They showed me proof of this. It took them quite a significant amount of time to get their payment reinstated. During that period of time, they really struggled. Another constituent had to attend a funeral. Maybe the death of a family member is not deemed important by this government, but this constituent believed that attending their father's funeral was vitally important. If they had not attended their father's funeral they would have had to live with that fact for the rest of their life. They informed the employment service beforehand but, still, their payment was cut off. There are numerous mistakes that are made along the way too. I feel that the compliance is all on one side of the record.
There is nobody in this House who believes more strongly than I do that every person who is unemployed should have the opportunity to get a job. I have spent a very big part of my life helping people find jobs. But this is not the way to go about it. This is punishing people and not taking into account the whole picture and every detail that is needed to get that person to work.
The bill seeks to allow a job seeker's participation payment to be suspended immediately, as I have said, if it is deemed that that job seeker is not putting in place appropriate job search efforts. I refer back to the first example I gave of a person who has a serious criminal record and has been very long-term unemployed. That person needs a plan that deals with a number of issues. They need an employment service that understands the issues that are preventing that person from entering the workforce. They need special assistance. They need a special plan. They do not need to just be in a situation where they are jumping through hoops. Jumping through hoops will not lead to anyone actually securing employment.
A job seeker who fails to accept work will no longer be able to have their penalty waived by re-engaging and undertaking additional activities, even if that would cause hardship. This is very harsh legislation. It is legislation that is not about the person; it is about this government trying to cut their deficit, a deficit that has doubled since they came to power. It demonstrates that this is a government that are not about the people. It demonstrates that this is a government that does not understand real issues that affect real people when they are looking at engaging in the workforce and obtaining employment. Nothing more graphically demonstrates the failures of this government to engage, consult and consider all the issues than this piece of legislation.
The opposition have previously supported similar moves that closely align suspension of penalties incurred in relation to missed appointments—and this is the point I would like to make. We should be protecting the rights of the job seeker to allow them to have that reviewed. It is very simple: they should have the right to have the decision reviewed. We want to protect the rights of the job seeker to show a reasonable excuse. Surely attending your father's funeral should be considered a reasonable excuse if you present the funeral notice—but no. We want to prevent the government's attack on the scope of 'reasonable excuse'. This government is bloody-minded. It is harsh. It does not consider the person. Labor's protection and approach has been very successful in reducing the average suspension time for missed appointments. A reduction of suspension times means that a person is not thrown into financial hardship. It means that the government is listening to people and actually trying to get on with what all of us in this House want—and that is for people who are unemployed to find a job.
It is really hard in our society to survive without any money. If you lose your job, you have no money. If you have no parental support, how do you pay for your food? How do you pay for your housing? You can go and seek assistance from one of the charities. I see this as the government shifting their responsibility onto charities. If the charities can help you, they will. But the suspension period really does create a lot of hardship for that person. It can lead to them losing their accommodation, if they are paying rent, and many other aspects of their lives can be impacted on.
I will end where I began. This is a government that may have changed its leader but it is a government that has the same policies, the same philosophy and the same ideology. It is a government that is not about creating employment and getting people into jobs. Rather, it is a government that is about cutting the budget deficit, a deficit that has doubled since it has been in power.
I rise today to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015. This is about government doing the right thing by the taxpayer, most certainly, but it is also about doing the right thing by those who are not taking the responsibility for themselves, their families and their nation as seriously as they might. At the end of the day, they are going to be better off—as are the country and taxpayer—if they are employed or seriously seeking to become so. This legislation does it through introducing more immediate consequences and stronger penalties for job seekers who fail to meet their obligations. The changes build on the no-show no-pay reforms introduced last year.
Since those changes taken last year we have seen more job seekers attending their reconnection appointments. The bill reaffirms the government's commitment to reinvigorating mutual obligation for job seekers in receipt of support income. In other words, it is doing the right thing by the taxpayer and the country, and it is our job to ensure that happens. The changes implemented ensure job seekers are doing their part and if they do not comply with their obligations they will now be held accountable for them.
Job seekers are obligated to enter into the Employment Pathway Plan. The EPP sets out a number of activities a job seeker must engage in, to become more employable, in return for income-support payments. It recognises that some people are not, in their current state, employable. It is not just about saying, 'Go out and get a job.' They are being helped, they are being urged and they are being assisted, but they have to play their part as well. Under this amendment, if a person refuses to enter into an EPP they will face penalties and payment suspensions. In addition, the job seeker may incur a penalty equivalent to a working day's payment for each day they continue to refuse without good reason. This is not without a safety net but it is there. The measure will act as a safeguard against people not properly engaging with the job search.
Under these changes, financial penalties will also apply to people failing to behave in an appropriate manner at an appointment. I think you can work out what that means. It means you actually have to try when you get there and not deliberately ruin it. Those who choose to behave badly during an appointment, without a legitimate excuse, may have a penalty amount deducted from their job seeker's participation payment. There is no value in a person attending an appointment when they deliberately undermine the purpose of it. It is about pushing responsibility onto the job seeker so they are held accountable for their actions. It will also see more immediate penalties for failure to participate in activities like Work for the Dole or job interviews.
Currently, the legislation only allows for penalties to be applied in future fortnightly instalment periods. That means it could take five weeks before it is applied. This will allow for penalties to be incurred in the current fortnightly instalment. Job seekers who are not engaging in an adequate job search will also be held to account and will face more timely penalties. Under the current system, a person may not be penalised for up to 14 weeks for ongoing inadequate job search. The compliance measures will see payments suspended immediately. Once they show that they have been putting in the effort and searching for employment, seriously, payments will be restored and they will even receive a full pay-back. It is not trying to make life unliveable, it is trying to do the right thing by the taxpayer—who funds people in this situation—and by themselves and their families, in the short and long term.
The bill will weed out those people who are taking advantage of our system. Genuine job seekers will remain supported and unaffected. Those job seekers who are offered a job and turn it down will also be subject to the eight-week non-payment period. If we expect society to support us, we have to do the right thing by society. In 2013-14, 78 per cent of eight-week non-payment-period penalties for refusing work were waived as job seekers opted to undertake additional activities rather than serve the financial penalty.
Those refusing work will no longer be able to avoid the penalties. People choosing not to work should not be rewarded, and the bill ensures those continuing to rort the system will face real consequences. This government—this parliament—would not be doing the right thing by those people who do work, pay tax and fund social security if we did not take this action. The bill will streamline and simplify the current framework. Redundant provisions will be removed and all short-term penalties will be renamed as no-show no pay.
As we have said, the bill adds to legislation implemented last year to further strengthen job-seeker compliance. There is evidence, so far, that there is a positive impact from introducing these penalties. Last year the changes saw rates of people attending their reconnection appointments jump from 65 per cent in 2013-14 to more than 90 per cent in June 2015. The figures tell the story there.
As I have been saying about community expectations, as community and taxpayers fund all social security payments—which are necessary—individuals who are not genuine job seekers are, at the moment, able to escape any real ramifications. Currently there is very little to deter a job seeker from moving into the workforce and choosing to get off welfare payments. Communities should not be expected to support those who do not want to work or contribute to our society. The bill ensures that community expectations are met and that people being supported by income payments are Australians who are genuinely looking for a job—if indeed they are physically and otherwise able to do so. If they are not and they need help to become that way, that is what this is all about.
We need a system that moves people off income support as quickly as possible. I believe these new compliance measures are reasonable and that they hold people to account. Job seekers most definitely need to be actively participating in changing their future, their family's future and in helping their country. As I said, we are not getting rid of safety nets; indeed in some ways we are strengthening them. But our welfare system is about helping Australians who have come on hard times, not people who are taking advantage of the system. Ramifications must be in place to act as a deterrent to people who are improperly relying on welfare, but at the same time the safety net is being strengthened rather than weakened. This amendment sends a clear message to Australia that those in need will be helped and will continue to be helped, while those taking advantage will face the ramifications.
For a government that claims to want to get away from big government and for a party that likes to preach about being a party that supports small government, those opposite really do like to go after job seekers and stand over them. Just consider the words of the former immigration minister, then social services minister and now Treasurer—the demonising language he uses. He says, 'We have got to stop young job seekers taking the welfare bus from the school gate to the Centrelink office.' This is a government that really likes to stand over job seekers, that really likes to demonise them and say that they are people who are bludging on our system. Quite frankly, that could not be further from the truth. Those people who are not genuinely looking for work quite often have something more complex going on in their lives. The majority of job seekers that I have met in my electorate and throughout regional Australia are genuinely wanting and looking for work. The problem that we have in this country at the moment is that there are just not enough jobs for the job seekers we have. There is more that this government can be doing to help create and secure good jobs in this country.
Labor's position, as some of the previous speakers have spelt out, is that we are supporting some of the measures in this bill but not supporting others—because we believe they will make it harder for vulnerable job seekers. It was Labor that first moved to encourage job seekers to engage with employment service providers, and we did this because we believe it is going to increase the likelihood of job seekers gaining work—keeping them active, keeping them positive. Yes, I acknowledge that there is some work we need to do with employment service providers; there are some good ones and there are some that need to pick up their game. That is something that any government needs to be vigilant about.
For these reasons Labor will support some of the proposals in this legislation. Labor believes that more closely aligning the dates of suspensions and/or penalties with the actual date of noncompliance will ensure that people re-engage more quickly. It will also ensure that any mistakes that are made can be corrected sooner. It does happen—we have all heard of examples of people accidentally being suspended and then not realising that that mistake has been made until they have had the money deducted from their pay. Closely aligning the date of suspension with the actual date of noncompliance will help to clean up those mistakes that occur and will encourage people to re-engage sooner.
We have previously supported similar moves in this regard for missed opportunities—ensuring, however, that the right of job seekers to have the decision reviewed is protected so we can make sure that we pick up those mistakes when they occur. It is about protecting the right of job seekers to show 'reasonable excuse'—so that there can be some compassion and understanding about why somebody has missed an appointment. It can be due to simple things: the bus did not turn up; there was a flat tyre; or, as a previous speaker mentioned, they went to a funeral. There needs to be an opportunity for job seekers to demonstrate reasonable excuse, because this is what happens in people's lives.
If we expect employers to be reasonable about excuses for why employees may be late to work, then Centrelink, job agencies and service providers should do the same. They should have that compassion and that understanding. We will only support the measures in this bill after preventing government attacks on the scope of what is reasonable excuse. We need to make sure that we are supporting people in helping them to work. We should not be slapping them down and standing over them with a big stick. We need to be supporting these people in genuinely finding work—extending the hand as opposed to slapping them down. As a result of the protections that Labor introduced, the average suspension for missing an appointment dropped from 5.2 business days down to 3.1, and the reforms that are before us today will help to reduce that even further.
Labor, however, is going to fight some of the proposals that are in this legislation. We will not support the broad changes that seek to penalise the behaviour of job seekers based upon criteria that are unfair, unclear and potentially will harm unemployed Australians. We do not support the penalties that prevent job seekers from re-engaging in activities that will help them to find work, especially when we know that such penalties will increase hardship. Also, we will not support any attempts to coerce jobseekers and undermine the mutual nature of the formation of a jobs plan. We need to make sure that there is independence within any plan, and that there is not any kind of untoward behaviour going on.
Labor have referred this bill to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for hearings and look forward to finding out the outcomes, because this is complex policy and we acknowledge that. We want to hear the experience of people seeking jobs.
As I said, we need to be getting on with the job of creating jobs. These measures would not be as important and necessary if we had a government that was genuine about creating jobs and not just more rhetoric. We are talking about people throughout the age spectrum—we are talking about younger workers, older workers, people who are genuinely looking for work, and there are not a lot of jobs available. There is more that the government can do in this space.
Recently, I caught up with Life Essentials in my electorate, and they are one of the early organisations that signed on the Work for the Dole program. What struck me when I went there was not just the professionalism of the participants but that they saw what they did every day—arriving to work on time, running the rosters and doing the work they did—as a job. They did not need to be under the banner of Work for the Dole. They had been volunteers previously. They were now Work for the Dole participants, and they were committed to the work that they were doing. Why? Because there were not jobs available for them. Their stories—they had been to 200 job interviews; they had submitted resumes over and over again, sometimes not even getting the reply, 'We have received your resume.' They said: 'Lisa, it is simple—there just aren't enough jobs for me. They just don't exist. I don't qualify for training anymore. I'm struggling to get out there and to talk to people in retail. There is a bit of a slowdown in retail. That has been my experience, and I just can't get a start.
Younger workers—youth unemployment in my area is up to 18.2 per cent. That is not because young people do not want work—they do. There is not the entry-level jobs available today for them. This is where the government could be really proactive and look at the space of temporary work visas, and the number of people who are in this country at the moment as overseas workers. There are 1.2 million temporary workers in this country, whether they be on 457, 467 or 417 visas, or international students. The government could help free up a lot of jobs that exist here in this country right now by cracking down and getting tough on the temporary workers and on what is going on in the temporary work visa space.
One of the reasons why local people are struggling to compete in this market is that there are temporary workers here who are being exploited. How can a young person from my electorate in Bendigo compete with someone who is here on a 457 visa, or a 417 visa, and getting paid $5 an hour less? How is this happening? At KR Castlemaine in my electorate—the 'big baco' where they produce a lot of 'dons' and KR Castlemaine, which you all buy in the supermarket—there is a collective agreement in place. That collective agreement has been undercut because the company has outsourced to a third party and employed 417 visas, and taken away jobs from local young people. At the moment, that is completely above board. There is clearly a weakness in the Fair Work Act, and there is clearly no will from this government to tackle that. Those young people who have lost their jobs at that place are now looking for work. They are people who are going to be subject to the rules that are before us today. They are quite willing to keep working at the bacon factory. They are quite willing to keep working there. They are keen to keep working there. But they have lost their jobs to people who are here on 417 visas—the backpacker visas. They have lost their jobs. They have been undercut.
This is where the government can do more to help create jobs—secure jobs, in our community. The youth unemployment rate is almost equal to the number of temporary backpackers that we have in this country. There is a problem with the temporary work visa space. Then we go to skilled workers—the 457 visas and all the scandals that we are hearing, almost on a weekly basis, of workers being underpaid in the 457 visa space. Some companies and employers are not even attempting to take on a graduate.
We have a very high rate of engineers coming out of university who cannot get a job within the first 12 months and the first two years. They might still be working in retail or they are looking for work; yet, time and time again, we are seeing those jobs go to people who are here on 457 visas. I challenge business and this government to come up with a plan that will see pathways from education into skilled professions. At the moment there is a gap. There is a gap in the graduate entry-level space, and this government is doing little to help encourage university students make that next step. Employers and government need to work together to ensure that we rebuild entry-level programs.
This bill does talk about job seekers. It does try to take the tough-stick approach to people who are looking for work. As I have said, some of these measures Labor will support, but others we will not because they go after vulnerable job seekers. This government needs to show compassion and understanding when it comes to people who are looking for work. I have mentioned that most people who are looking for work just need a job, and this government needs to do more to create jobs.
For the other group of people who are missing appointments and not getting there on time—quite often there is something more complex going on in their lives. These are people who might come from intergenerational unemployment, and there are pockets of this disadvantage that exist everywhere. In my electorate, we have parts where there is third generation unemployment. This measure, by cutting their payment off, is not going to fix what is going on in their homes. They need support, education for their children and social workers to go into their homes to help rebuild their confidence. The more sticks and slap-downs that you give them do not empower them to step up and take control and go to that job interview.
What we need to do is to be supporting these people to step up from the grassroots, support organisations like our councillors and support our welfare organisations to encourage them to re-engage and get involved in their community. It is more complex than just cutting them off, sending them a text message and saying, 'Go back to your interview.'
That is why some of the organisations in our electorate are engaging with the Work for the Dole program or other programs to strongly encourage that grassroots movement and to rebuild people's confidence. If only this government could get out there on the ground and start talking to people about the importance of creating jobs. You can do all the reform that you want in this place around vulnerable job seekers, making sure that we have got the rules tough enough and making sure people turn up to appointments, but, if you talk to anybody who is working in this space, what they want be able to offer job seekers is options—options in jobs that are available.
One of the previous speakers said that, if somebody refuses to take a job, they should be kicked off payments for that, or words to that effect. In regional areas, sometimes people turn down jobs because they do not have available child care or they cannot afford the car to get to the job on time. We do not always have decent public transport to help people get from A to B. Not every job is suitable to every person, so there needs to be compassion, understanding and flexibility. I strongly urge the government to rethink its approach to job seekers and to do more to help create genuine job opportunities, because without creating genuine job opportunities we are not going to be able to move people genuinely from social security, welfare and job seeker payments into jobs. Jobs are critical and this government needs to come up with a plan that will create good secure jobs that people can count on.
It gives great pleasure to talk about the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015. Having purpose and having a job is very essential. In fact I hark back to a book I have been reading recently, quoting Henry Bolte, the once great 17-year Premier of the state of Victoria. He said, 'If you can ensure that people can get a job and then ultimately buy a house, much of the economy falls into place after that.' This is very true. We have to ensure that we create the economic framework for people to have a job.
The difference between the coalition and the Labor Party on this is how we get to that end. We recognise that governments actually do not employ people very much. It is small business that employs people. It is profitable businesses that employ people, and governments then come along and employ people in those services that surround the economic activity that is driven by business. So if we are going to create jobs then we need to have the economic climate and the opportunity to produce something: either dig it up and sell it, value-add it to make something to provide a service—whether it be an education service, a food service or a marketing service—or grow it. In doing those things we stimulate an economy, and in stimulating an economy we create jobs.
The thing that we have been very instrumental in during a very short time, just two years in the parliament, has been creating the opportunity: the opportunity through a free trade agreement with China, the opportunity through a free trade agreement with Korea, the opportunity through a free trade agreement with Japan and the opportunity through the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It rattled me a little bit when I listened to the previous speaker, the member for Bendigo, who has probably been one of the greatest opponents to the free trade agreement with China, and that disappoints me, because I always want to tell a little story about why extra market opportunities translate to jobs and to wealth in the country.
In 1991, when I was a 16-year-old, we were exporting sheepmeat to 12 countries across the world. We had a bit of a dry time. Sheep were worth 25c, and we dug pits, we lined up with guns and we shot those sheep. On our farm business, we are now exporting sheepmeat to 96 countries across the world. Think about that: 96 countries. Recently, a few weeks ago, we sold for $110 old ewes that 24 years ago we would have shot. That is what comes from opening up trading opportunities. What are the outworkings of that? The outworkings of that are on my property. We are able to employ quite a number of people—that is jobs. Jobs start by creating opportunities, and that is what are doing, and that is really the key focus.
I look across the electorate of Mallee that I represent. Four years ago, we had zero citrus into China. Now we have 10,000 tonnes of citrus annually going into China. Four years ago, we had zero shipping containers of table grapes, and now we have over 1,000 shipping containers of table grapes. All those are hand-picked. All the irrigation systems that are rolled out are ultimately being done by people, and that is jobs. The free trade agreements and those extra market opportunities have meant that, instead of having to take the price that is offered, we have more customers for the things we produce. We get more money in. More money then stimulates people to have more confidence, and they then employ people, and these are some low-skilled jobs.
It is true that, when we think about how we structure an economy, we have to have jobs for people of all different levels, and I am saying something today to the students of Australia who are doing their year 11 and 12 exams: do your best, but don't get worked up about your results, because we want to have a society that has all sorts of skills. Some people will become lawyers—I hope not too many of them do. Some people will become great tradespeople. Some people will be farmers and some people will be teachers. We want to have an economy that allows the diversity of jobs for a whole range of people so they can use their natural God-given gifts to contribute to society. But there also have to be obligations for laziness. We are not saying that there should not be social security, but there have to be obligations for laziness.
I was in the United States in July. We are not like the United States, and I am proud of that. In the United States, if you are unemployed, you get benefits for six months and then they are cut off. In those unemployment benefits you also receive health benefits, but, if you are not working and you are not paying your health insurance, that is also cut off. So you have a six-month period where people have to get a job and, at the end of the six months, they are cut loose. They are cut loose from the health system and they are cut loose from the welfare system. We are not proposing something like that. I do not think any fair-minded Australian would ever support something like that.
What we are saying and what the collective population of Australia is saying to a person who is unemployed is: 'We are going to support you to ensure that you have a roof over your head and that you are fed, but we want an obligation from you. That obligation is that you need to be actively trying to better yourself, either through training or through trying to get a job.' That might not mean you get to pick your dream job. If there is one thing I have learnt through my working career, as someone who did not go to university, is that the best way to get a better job is to be working in a job. When you are working in a job, you are showing to potential or future employers that you are motivated, that you are willing to turn up and that you are willing to get out of bed.
I see that we have children in the gallery. One of the great things about the children in the gallery is that they get to see their House, the people's House. I am going to give a great piece of advice to the children in the gallery up there: the secret to success is to look at what everyone else is doing and do a little more. So, if you work in a supermarket and people are stacking shelves, just do a little bit more. If you are working at McDonald's and you see someone working, just do a little bit more. Even in school, the secret to success is to just do a little bit more. My father always told me, when I was working—and I started by riding a pushbike to clean out horse stables as a kid—to never walk around with my hands in my pockets, because it makes it look like you are not working. It is about perception. If you want to be noticed by the boss and want to be noticed for success, just do a little bit more.
This legislation is really about saying that, for those who do not want to honour the agreement of benefits that are being provided to the Australian people, there will be consequences. So, if you are unemployed and you are in the process of trying to get a job—you are actively seeking and you are working with the bodies that the Commonwealth has funded to help you get a job—and you are trying your best, you have nothing to fear from this legislation at all. But, if you can find lots of excuses to not try to get a job, then I do not think it is unreasonable for the Commonwealth to say that there might be consequences to you not fulfilling your obligation.
In this bill there are financial penalties for failing to enter an Employment Pathway Plan. There are penalties if you fail to behave in an appropriate manner at an appointment, and that is fair and reasonable. If the Commonwealth is going to provide services and can help set you up for a job interview and you turn up at that job interview and actively do not want to try to get the job, then I do not think you are fulfilling your obligations to the people of Australia who are paying your benefits. There are obligations to take the job that is presented to you if it is fair and reasonable. As I said earlier, if you are working within a job, that is the best chance to get a job.
There is a capacity to try to get a more simplified compliance framework. We do not want people to be disadvantaged because they do not understand the system; we want to make sure it is clear that you are getting benefits and, as a result of getting those benefits, this is what we expect of you. Making it more streamlined is fair. We do not want people to be disadvantaged for ignorance. But we do say to job seekers: if you are unemployed, you are not just unemployed; your new purpose is to be a job seeker. It is our obligation as members of parliament to create the economic framework for that take place.
In creating the economic framework for that to take place, we also need to be very mindful that sometimes people find challenges in getting on the first rung of the ladder. People do not always have the greatest start in life. Some people do not always have the greatest role models to follow. We have to break the stereotype and that is the challenge. There are 600,000 Australians living in households where no-one has ever held down a job, which means that a child growing up may not know which role model to follow. That is why I am a strong believer in ensuring that there are also supportive services around to help people get on the first rung of the ladder. I think we are doing it. We are doing it reasonably well, but there is obviously more work to do on this. It can be a multiple approach.
I have a very strong Indigenous community in the electorate of Mallee. We have a program in schools called the Clontarf Football Program. Some might be aware of it. It started with a love of AFL and using AFL football to get people engaged and then help them get job-ready. In that program, quite a few businesses sat down with the Aboriginal kids and said to them, 'These are the jobs we have available.' The guys were so self-confident and had so much ability—they were going on to university or they were going to do this or were going to do that. It really has taken people who may not have got on the first rung of the ladder onto the first rung of the ladder. In Stawell, the community has 20 people in year 10 and, as part of their education, they have to do an interview to be in the program. Then, over a period of 20 days throughout half a year, they get exposure to a different career choice. They might do a day in a bakery and are given a heap of flour and finish by making a product. They might do a day in the council and will realise what human resources are. They may do a day in a law firm. So, over that 20 days they are exposing people to getting job ready. I think there are some real great models that we can roll out across Australia to ensure that people can get on the first rung of the ladder.
To summarise, the federal government's role is of course to create the economic framework. We are doing that. We are very mindful of that. We are doing that through our free trade agreements. We are creating market opportunities. We are trying to instil confidence in small business so that they will employ one extra person. If every small business in Australia employed one extra person we would not have enough people to fill the opportunities that would be available.
We are also providing a welfare system that is fair and is asking some obligations of those who are recipients of it. Then, we are doing a lot of work to try to get people to be able to attain the first rung on the ladder. Ultimately, this multifaceted approach is how we build society. I want to reiterate to young people who are doing their exams and studies at the moment: do your best—there are many jobs and many career pathways out there for you. There are many ways you can contribute to society and many ways you can contribute to making Australia great.
It is not unreasonable for the Commonwealth to ask obligations of those we are providing benefits to. The purpose in doing that is, ultimately, so that people who are receiving benefits can get off these benefits and then contribute to Australian society, stand a little bit taller and be a little bit more proud, because they have a job.
One of the biggest policy challenges we face in this parliament is the 800,000 Australians who are today out of work. It has been to my enormous distress and frustration that, even since I was elected to parliament two years ago, this problem has grown significantly worse. We have seen the unemployment rate in this country climb significantly since I was elected to parliament. For certain pockets of this country and for certain people who are living in Australia and have a looser connection to the labour market, such as young Australians, the problem has gotten dramatically worse.
Unemployment is a profoundly important issue. For a Labor member of parliament this is absolutely core to our mission. We know that the best way out of poverty is a job, and the fastest way into poverty is job loss. So I want to start by saying how critical it is that we talk in this parliament about this pivotal issue of unemployment.
It has been with some disappointment that I have seen a real lack of discussion in this chamber about this important topic. The debate today on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015 touches on the support we give to people who are out of work. But what I am waiting to see come before this House is a bill about job creation and how it is that we are going to start to get these 800,000 Australians, many of them young people—one in five unemployment Australians today are young people—into work.
The bill today relates to the system we have set in place to help connect people who lose their jobs back into work. This is a critically important social justice issue. One of the things the evidence on job loss is very clear on is that the best indicator of how long someone will be unemployed is how long they have been unemployed for. What this means is that the quicker we can get people who lose their jobs back into work, it is the very best thing we can do for those people, because every extra day on which they are unemployed makes it that bit more challenging. So, the system that we construct to help people who lose their jobs to instantly connect back into work—to get back on their feet and give them the support and skills they need to find a new job—is incredibly important.
Making the system work well is a very worthy goal, and it is something that Labor comes to the table to discuss, with the importance being on evidence in this and not on ideology. We do not want to assess the strength of this system based on what are really unsubstantiated beliefs about what it may be like to be unemployed and what sort of things we can do to help people. Rather, we should look at the studies that have been done and at things we have tried in the system before. We need to look at what really does make a difference to people who are looking for work.
What principles will we use to consider legislation that touches on this really important area of helping people who have fallen out of work? I think the first one is that we should show real concern for these Australians who are struggling to find work. All of us, as members of parliament, talk to people who are struggling to find work. Every time in the last two years that I have done a mobile office or set up at a train station to talk to people I represent about what is worrying them, I will have a person who is struggling to find work. The sense of incredible distress they feel and the enormous impact this has on mental health and self-esteem cannot be overstated. This is intensely important. It does not just affect the person, but their whole family generally is affected by their falling out of work. So I think we need to be frank and be concerned about these people and provide them with support.
The member who preceded me in this discussion talked extensively about the need for mutual obligation. Of course Labor supports the need for mutual obligation. We support it because that is the fair approach. It is fair that people who are getting benefits from government also give back to their community. But we support it because that is what is in the best interests of job seekers. One of the driving principles of all of this area of policy is that we need to help people and support them and also push them a little bit to re-engage, because people who do fall out of work sometimes can start to slip through the cracks, and we cannot allow that to happen. So, when we talk about mutual obligation we need to be clear that this is not a punishment. It is not trying to penalise people who often, through no fault of their own, find themselves without work. But it is an important principle, because it helps that person.
These are some of the principles through which we have looked at the proposals that have been put forward by the government in this bill. Using that approach we support three aspects to the six changes that are being proposed, and there are three that we do not believe are in the best interests of the system and we therefore will not be supporting them.
I will first talk through the aspects of the bill that we are supportive of. Firstly, the bill seeks to allow a job seeker's participation payment to be suspended when a job seeker fails to participate in an activity, without a reasonable excuse, from the instalment period in which the failure is determined, and not the following fortnight—I will decode that into English in a moment. The second aspect is that the bill allows a job seeker's participation payment to be suspended immediately when the job seeker fails to undertake adequate job search efforts, without a reasonable excuse. The final of the three provisions that we will support is that the bill will rename all failures resulting in short-term financial penalties as 'no-show no-pay' failures.
What does all that mean? The central meaning of all of this is that the government is proposing to bring the penalty associated with failing to comply with the job seeker system close to the action itself, which is the failure to comply. It means that, if you are judged not to have turned up to your appointments and this is a consistent failure, the decision of the government to not continue your payments will be brought right back to the point in time that this behaviour occurred. It sounds like a small thing, but it is actually critically important. What we are trying to do is perfectly line up the failure to comply with, essentially, the punishment or the incentive to re-comply. The reason that Labor will support these provisions, again, has nothing to do with anything punitive; but we know that, when we bring those two things together, the job seeker is absolutely clear about the reason that their payments have been ceased, and we can show that this reduces the time that people are without payment. This is very consistent with Labor's approach to this policy space while we were in government. Labor of course have always encouraged job seekers to engage with employment providers, but the evidence, which we worked on while in government, does show that this short period between the reason for suspension and the reduction in income is important and productive, and previous efforts to line them up have reduced the delay in payment for the job seeker.
All of these things are terribly important because we are trying to tighten up this system to, again, ensure that people who are without work are not allowed to fall through the cracks. We cannot in good conscience allow people who fall out of work to disengage completely from the system. We need to encourage people to keep trying to get back on their feet and get back in the game, and the three amendments that I have referred to are really trying to achieve that. For those reasons, Labor will support them and we are happy to continue to improve the system.
But I mentioned earlier that one thing that Labor will not do is confuse the job seeker system, which primarily exists to support people back into work, with some form of punishment. There are 800,000 Australians out of work today and surely no-one in this House believes that all of those people are completely at fault for what has happened to them. These are broader macroeconomic issues that they, in a sense, are the victims of, and it is completely inappropriate to create a system of punishment to bully those people into jobs that, frankly, do not always exist for them.
For those reasons, there are three measures in this bill that we will not be supporting because we believe they are punitive, are unfair and will, frankly, have terrible social justice outcomes, which will push more job seekers into poverty faster. The first measure is that this bill seeks to allow job seekers' participation payments to be immediately suspended if job seekers fail to enter into a jobs plan. Essentially, job seekers are presented by their service provider with a plan for how they are going to get back into work. The bill is essentially seeking to provide that, if the job seeker does not immediately sign this plan, their penalty will be that their payments are stopped, so they will be left without any income. Labor believes this is unfair because it just takes it too far, essentially. It seems incredibly unfair to ask a person who has fallen out of work to instantly, on the spot, sign up to a plan that they have not had the time to take away, consider and discuss with their family. We know that often these plans recommend things that the job seeker is not even meant to be doing. The shadow minister gave a good example of an older person who had fallen out of work who was asked to go into a Work for the Dole program. Under this bill, the person would not have the time to take the document away, consider it, get advice and speak to people.
The other aspect of this that we do not like is that there is simply no evidence that this type of activity is going to encourage more people into work. What it is likely to do instead is take vulnerable people, force them into signing a document that they have not had the time and the space to consider, and threaten them with a failure to comply and not having any income at all. That is patently unfair.
The second aspect of the bill that Labor will not be supporting is the provision that seeks to introduce a new penalty for job seekers who are deemed to act in an inappropriate manner. One of the critical issues—and this actually spans across the three measures that Labor will not support—is the lack of clarity around what exactly this means. I heard the member from the other side who preceded me in the debate talk about what he believed was an inappropriate manner, but it is not defined in the legislation. What the bill suggests is that the secretary of the department will have full power to define 'inappropriate manner'. This will not be a matter subject to parliamentary oversight, and this is a really problematic feature. We also know that the behaviour of the person deemed to be inappropriate will have to come through multiple different sources—perhaps from the person running the Work for the Dole program, to the job services provider, back into the arms of government. We just do not believe that the powers around something that so lacks clarity should be handed over to the secretary.
I remind the House: of course a lot of things that we do in this House allow a lot of latitude on the part of decision makers and public servants, and sometimes that is appropriate, but let's remember that the end point of this is someone's income being taken away from them. Someone without any other income will be literally with no income. These are people who have rent to pay, food to purchase and families to support. So I think we need to set the bar a little higher than just allowing one senior public servant to define inappropriate behaviour and set up a system where we see multiple points at which messages and communications could get mixed up. I think we need to work a little harder than that and be a little clearer about what is and is not acceptable. Perhaps Labor will be willing to have that discussion if there is a bit more clarity.
The final aspect of the bill that Labor will not be supporting is the provision that would not allow job seekers who fail to accept work to be able to have their penalty waived by re-engaging and undertaking additional activities, even if it would cause financial hardship. In a sense, I have left the worst till last here, because I think this is such a good example of what we see so much of on the other side of the House, and that is this appalling treatment of job seekers without any acceptance that there are a lot of vulnerable people who are job seekers in this country, and we should not set up a system which essentially punishes them for being victims of broader economic issues over which they have little or no control.
Essentially, the way the system works at the moment is that there is a discretion about whether someone's payments will be taken away from them, subject to the person agreeing to undertake additional activities. So, if they miss a series of job appointments or they do not show up to their Work for the Dole program, there is the capacity for government to say, 'We're going to allow you to continue to receive your payments if you agree to do the following things.' This bill seeks to take that discretion away. What we are talking about here is that there will be many more job seekers who will be left without income. The specific provision says that it does not even matter if this is going to cause financial hardship to the person. We are talking here about vulnerable job seekers who are definitely going to be put in situations where they may become homeless, because job seekers are the most vulnerable people, and the discretion to decide whether to take that payment away or not is being dealt with.
We are always enthusiastic to engage in discussions about this important system, but unfortunately three of the most significant aspects of this provision are simply unfair, and Labor will not be able to support them.
I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015. This bill ensures that Australians who are looking for work and receiving financial assistance meet their mutual obligations to taxpayers. It is not unreasonable for taxpayers to expect that those they are assisting financially will do a few simple things to help themselves and to show their appreciation.
I know that many people in my electorate are doing it tough, but my belief is that you can achieve anything if you are willing to work for it, and work hard. From my personal experience, money was incredibly tight in my family as I grew up. Anything I wanted above the essentials, I had to pay for myself. There is only one way to find money to pay for essentials and other things, and that is to go to work. Both my parents worked incredibly hard, and they taught me that persistence and determination will always beat natural talent, because regardless of natural talent, if you do not turn your hand to what needs to be done, you will not be successful.
I note the contribution of my good friend and colleague the member for Mallee. He spoke about what happens when you stand around with your hands in your pockets. In my family, if you stood around with your hands in your pockets, you got a job. Consequently, my mother used to put me and my brothers outside to work. I think—and I did not realise this until much later in life—that may well have been to get us out of the way. However, it was a good upbringing and it certainly taught us a good work ethic.
At the age of 14 I got my first paid job. Work has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. Basically, being without work meant no food—it was all fairly straightforward. My first paid job was filling bags with ice on a Thursday night for $4.00 an hour or 10c a bag, whichever was less. Consequently, I learnt very quickly what it is that you should be doing when you go to work. I might not have been the best at everything I did, but I was reliable and I kept turning up. To the people in my electorate and to the youth that might be listening to this speech, my advice to you is this: keep showing up, listen, work hard and take advice, certainly do not let things get you down, and be determined.
After graduating from public high school at Kepnock State High, I got my first full-time job as an electrical apprentice at the Fairymead Sugar Mill, which unfortunately is now defunct and has been demolished. I saved enough money from that job to move to Brisbane and go to university. I put myself through a four-year degree in engineering at QUT. So it has been a very long and tortuous path to come to this place. Before being elected to represent the great electorate of Hinkler—from Bundy to the Bay and the Bush—I ran my own consulting business, a retail arm and a few other bits and pieces, as well as acquiring some farming operations consecutively, which certainly taught me the value of hard work and, of course, how to pay people's wages.
I would say to the people in my electorate this: if a Woongarra farm boy like me can get into this place, into the cold rooms in Canberra, then anyone in my electorate can achieve anything if they are willing to do the work. Once again, my advice to them is this: take what job is in front of you, because if you wait for perfect you will wait forever. However, I recognise there are currently several challenges to gaining employment in the Hinkler region, including a lack of job vacancies. Unemployment in my electorate is unacceptably high.
The coalition government has introduced a range of measures to support job seekers and encourage businesses to employ. I will come back to that. Firstly I would like to speak a little more specifically about the measures in this bill. This bill builds on the measures we introduced last year to apply a no-show no-pay rule to attendance at appointments and the payment of welfare. Before we introduced the changes, only 65 per cent of job seekers who missed an initial appointment actually turned up for their second rescheduled appointment. By comparison, in June 2015 over 90 per cent of job seekers are now attending their rescheduled appointments. Between September 2014 and March 2015, the average payment suspension period fell from 5.2 to 3.1 business days. That is quite an achievement. It means more job seekers are doing the right thing and taking advantage of the help that is on offer, which is substantial. It also saves jobactive organisations and other agencies time and money. They can spend more time helping people find work and less time pursuing job seekers and reporting noncompliance. The no-pay rule will be extended to other mutual obligation requirements, such as entering into a job plan. Job plans list the activities that a job seeker must do in return for their income support, such as looking for work and participating in activities like Work for the Dole.
I make the point that job plans take into account personal circumstances, which may impact a person's ability to comply with the requirements. Unfortunately, some job seekers are refusing to enter into job plans—can you believe that? They are, in effect, saying, 'I would like the taxpayer's money, but do not expect anything from me in return.' I would like to see them try that with an employer.
I would like to talk briefly about one of my former employers at the Moreton mill, a chief engineer by the name of Graham 'Sharky' Williams. Graham was an incredible personnel manager who held a lot of respect from everybody that worked there. Every time we hired an apprentice, he opened with the same line: after he introduced himself, he would ask the apprentice if they knew what size shoe he wore. At that stage the poor apprentice, on their first day of work, was nervous and did not know quite what to say, and the boss told him it was a size 10 and if they played up they would find out what he would do with it. It is all figurative, but he got the best out of the people who worked at the plant simply because he encouraged them to persist and to keep showing up.
Under this bill, payment will be suspended until the job seeker accepts the job plan. There are safeguards in the system so that those with a reasonable and genuine excuse for noncompliance will not be penalised. Unfortunately, some job seekers are treating their meetings with jobactive and Work for the Dole with contempt by not behaving appropriately. If a job seeker does not behave appropriately at an appointment, payment may be suspended until the job seeker attends a new appointment and does behave appropriately. In the past, it has taken up to five weeks for a financial penalty to be applied. This is too long, and makes the penalty less effective. Under this bill, those who do the wrong thing will have their penalties deducted from their next fortnightly payment. Job seekers who do not undertake adequate job search efforts without good reason will have their payments immediately suspended until they demonstrate adequate job search efforts.
Australia's income support system is there as a safety net for those people who genuinely cannot find work—we have one of the best social security systems in the world—as opposed to supporting those who simply do not want to go to work. That is why we have introduced measures to ensure job seekers accept the offer of a suitable job when it is made—not jobs that are beyond their skill set but jobs they are capable of doing. An eight-week nonpayment penalty can now be applied to job seekers who refuse work without good reason or fail to start a job as planned. I have had many jobs that I did not like every part of. In fact, I do not recall ever holding a job where I liked everything 100 per cent. But that is the reality of working life. All of these changes are important in helping maintain public confidence and trust in our social security system.
Earlier I mentioned that we had introduced a range of measures to support job seekers and make them stand out in what is a highly competitive jobs market. Through Work for the Dole, the National Work Experience Program and the Green Army, job seekers are learning important skills while contributing to their communities. Young people can also gain new skills through the reinstated Australian Defence Force gap year. The 2015 budget included $330 million for a youth employment strategy to help young people transition from school to work. Young job seekers who find a job and stay off welfare for 12 months will receive a job commitment bonus of $2,500, and a further $4,000 at 24 months. These are substantial incentives. We are providing concessional trade support loans of up to $20,000 and spending $200 million each year to lift apprenticeship completion rates. We are also providing up to $9,000 to help people relocate to take up a job.
Giving genuine job seekers the hand up they deserve is just one piece of the puzzle. We are also taking steps to give businesses the confidence they need to expand, because ultimately it is businesses that create jobs and employ. Businesses that employ young or mature age job seekers can access wage subsidies of up to $10,000. We have reduced the company tax rate to its lowest level in 50 years and are allowing small businesses to claim an immediate tax deduction for each asset they purchase up to $20,000. There are a range of grants to assist businesses to innovate, conduct industry research and expand into new export markets. Off the back of the free trade agreements we have signed, I am sure businesses will be successful. There is the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme for job seekers who have an idea for a new business but need some advice to get it off the ground. As you can see, the coalition government is doing everything it can to ensure our social security system is robust and fair, and to help people into work.
I will continue to work hard to attract the investment into Hinkler that we desperately need—things like the Knauf manufacturing plant, and our proposal for a dive wreck of Hervey Bay, with HMAS Tobruk, which could potentially add $5 million to our local economy. But I cannot do it alone. We all have a role to play in creating local jobs for current and future generations. There are two simple things people in my community can do to boost our local economy—they can shop locally and buy from our local businesses, and they can tell everyone just how good our region is. You should never talk down your local region—our regions are the best thing we have going for us. Going to work is not only good for the individual and their family. When the local employment rate is high, the entire community benefits. There is nothing more substantial for a person than to be able to find their own way through life and to pay their own way. I commend the bill to the House.
I am sure it is self-evident to everyone here that public policy should constantly be checked and improved where it can be. Change in itself is not a bad thing, and reform is often a good thing. When it comes to getting people back into work in this country, we should be constantly looking for ways to improve the situation, to improve their lot and get them back into work. Regrettably the unemployment rate in this country is stubbornly persistent. Seasonally adjusted, the current Australian unemployment rate still sits at 6.2 per cent, and it is somewhat higher than that in Tasmania at 6.4 per cent. As high as those figures are, the real figure is undoubtedly much higher. Because of the way we measure the unemployed rate in this country, in essence if someone works at all, even an hour a week, they are not recorded as being unemployed and they are certainly not recorded as being underemployed. I have heard it said that the real unemployment rate might even be double the reported unemployment rate, and the underemployment rate might be double that again. If you start to add that up, a quarter of the work force could be either effectively unemployed or genuinely underemployed. So we do need good public policy to create more jobs and to get these people into jobs or into more work. This is especially the case in Tasmania, where the unemployment rate is higher and in particular the youth unemployment rate is higher. Nationally the youth unemployment rate sits at about 12.2 per cent, but it is 17 per cent in Tasmania, according to the official figures. According to community organisations in south-east Tasmania, around the Hobart area, it sits at almost 20 per cent—one in five young people in southern Tasmania are unemployed. That is not good enough.
I want to put a human face to those statistics. Too often in this place we talk about grand public policy and big reforms and big money and big dollars. I remind honourable members that we should always be putting a human face to these conversations. Every one of these people is a real human being. Some of them are struggling mightily against the odds and, to their great credit, are often achieving. I will give some cases of people who are not being well served by the current arrangement and will find things much more difficult if this Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015 is to become law.
The first example is a 58-year-old female constituent of mine who is on Newstart. She simply does not understand how to apply for jobs online, and the job service provider has not taken the time to explain it to her. Even if the job service provider were to explain it to her, she could not apply for jobs at home anyway because her internet has been cut off because she cannot afford to pay for it. That brings me to the point that, according to ACOSS, Newstart currently is about $280 a fortnight below the poverty line. If we want to help these people, if we want to help this 58-year-old woman from my part of the world, a good way to start would be to increase Newstart to a level that allows her to live a better life and to have the resources to actually get a job—to have the internet on at home. This woman, to her credit, is doing volunteer work at the botanical gardens, but that is only nine hours per week as opposed to the required 15 hours. She has applied for volunteer work with the Salvos, but she simply cannot get the 15 hours a week that she is required to achieve. The very sad footnote to this particular story is that this woman's adult child is disabled and, because of the obligations that are already on her before this bill becomes law, she simply does not have enough time to spend with her disabled child and cannot do the things that her disabled child desperately wants to do, like going camping, because of the requirements that are already on her.
Another human face of the current unemployment situation in this country is a 25-year-old Iranian woman with limited English. She does not understand the changes that were made in July and has been repeatedly cut off from her payments. The issue for this woman is that she keeps reporting late, but no-one has bothered to get a translator to explain this to her. She thinks that her payment rates just vary and that is just the way things are. She has been underpaid and no-one has helped her out. We are talking here about an Iranian woman with limited English. The Multicultural Council of Tasmania has raised with me that they are getting a number of complaints with regard to the new requirements, as people not only do not understand them but also do not have the English or computer skills to comply with them.
Another example, another human face, is a 26-year-old female constituent who is enrolled in a two-year fast-track nursing degree that must be done full time. Because she is doing it as a second degree she is not eligible for youth allowance, so she is on Newstart. She was told, until we remedied it, that she had to drop her full-time degree—the pathway to becoming a nurse and getting a great job—so that she could meet the Work for the Dole requirements. I am pleased to report that in this particular case my office raised the matter with the department and her situation was eventually remedied. But what about the people who do not have the wherewithal to get their situation remedied or to talk to the very good staff that I have? These people fall through the cracks.
Another example, another human face to these figures, is a 63-year-old man who is expected to apply for 10 jobs a week. That is 40 a month, but in the last four years he has only ever had seven replies to his applications. He recently did receive a reply thanking him for his application but saying he was unsuccessful as they had received over 300 applications.
These are the human faces of the current situation, and it is a very sad collection of human faces. Will this bill remedy things? Regrettably, it will not. These are not malingerers or bludgers. These are not people who are trying to rort the system. These human faces, these individuals I have described, do not deserve additional legislation that could, at best, be described as punitive—and that is how I would start to describe this bill—or could even be described as vindictive. The underlying philosophical base or foundation for this bill is an assumption that most job seekers are out there trying to rort the system. The reality, of course, is that most job seekers desperately want a job and will do everything in their power to comply with the government's existing requirements and new requirements, but they cannot always do it.
This bill has a number of problems that will just make things worse. For example, people will be forced to sign up to a job plan without any opportunity to discuss or negotiate it, and if they do not agree with the job plan they will be penalised. That cannot be fair. The penalties for what is described as 'inappropriate behaviour' will disproportionately target people with behavioural problems or mental health problems. If you do not show up for an interview you will not get paid. So if you are asked to attend a meeting but have something in your personal life that prevents you attending that meeting you will not get paid. Genuine reasons—such as being physically or mentally unwell, having childcare issues or other equally valid reasons—would not be deemed as valid reasons.
We need a better approach to unemployment and underemployment in this country. We are not going to solve it by putting in place increasingly punitive and even vindictive legislative requirements—requirements that basically take money off the unemployed at the first excuse, and arrangements that punish people unfairly. Most of these people desperately want a job. Some of them have very difficult lives. Some of them have complex lives. Some of them are looking after other people—looking after a disabled child, in that example I gave. We need a better approach to helping these people.
For a start, we could increase Newstart. I make the point, again, that ACOSS has found that the current rate of Newstart is $280 per fortnight below the poverty line. When you are paying people that little amount of money—those few dollars—they are not being given the circumstances to lift themselves up out of underemployment and unemployment.
We need better help for the young. I have said that youth unemployment in south-east Tasmania is almost 20 per cent. What are we doing to help them? We are doing less and less to help the very young. In fact, we say that if you are under 22 years of age and your parent or parents have a modest wage you cannot even access Centrelink benefits. That is not good enough.
We need better help for the aged, for older unemployed people. There are a whole range of things that the previous government could have done to deal with the ageism that exists. It is next to impossible for someone over the age of 50 to get a job, and I am sure there are many things that we could do in this place to make it easier. For a start, there should be a cabinet-level minister for older Australians, and there are a whole lot of other ideas that could be implemented to improve the circumstances for older unemployed people.
We need to stop job-killing policies. I spoke in this place just yesterday about the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 that was debated in the House of Representatives yesterday. It is a so-called reform by this government that will kill 2,000 jobs nationally, including 230 jobs in Tasmania. There are 230 jobs in Tasmania that will go as a direct result of the shipping bill that was debated by this House yesterday. This government and the previous government between them axed 198 workers at the CSIRO in Tasmania. This government has axed dozens of jobs at the Australian Antarctic Division in and around Hobart on account of the so-called efficiency dividends that they have had to implement. The University of Tasmania has lost positions because, like all universities around the country, it has had to deal with $4 billion in underfunding on account of decisions of the previous Labor government. Thank heavens deregulation is not going to go ahead, because that would cost the tertiary sector another $5 billion. The now-famous Cadbury money keeps coming up in this place. There was $16 million that was identified as desperately needed for the City of Glenorchy area because that disadvantaged area needs economic stimulus. That has been pulled by this government—with the support of the Labor Party, I add. In regard to Defence contracts, Hobart has a wonderful Defence manufacturing precinct, but the previous government and this government have sent virtually no work there.
In regard to arts funding, Tasmania has a wonderful arts sector and, in fact, is on the cusp of an arts led economic revival. Yet, in the 2014 budget, the Australia Council nationally lost $28.3 million over four years. In this budget the Australia Council has had to implement an efficiency saving of $7.3 million, not to mention the $105 million that has been cut from the Australia Council budget to set up the slush fund, the National Program for Excellence in the Arts. Tasmania has almost entirely small and middle sized arts bodies. All of them—in fact, every arts body in Tasmania with the exception of the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra—will bear the brunt of these cuts to the arts sector.
I have already spoken about the shipping bill, which was debated in this place yesterday, shamefully. That will cost another 230 jobs in Tasmania. It will probably cost $100 million of investment by SeaRoad, who have already signalled that they are unlikely to go ahead with the replacement of two vessels because of the bill that was debated in this place yesterday.
We need to stop treating the unemployed as bludgers. We need to understand that most of them, the overwhelming majority of them, desperately want work, and we need to put in place policies that will create that work. We need to stop having policies that are killed jobs, particularly in Tasmania. We have a population of 500,000 people, which is as big as a city on the mainland. When you take a couple of hundred jobs out of a place like Tasmania it hurts, and it is not good enough to then turn around to the newly unemployed and have a vindictive policy against them.
In my last few seconds I will just say that the role of government is to prevent disadvantage and to help the disadvantaged. A vindictive, punitive bill like this does not achieve that. (Time expired)
It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015. The member for Denison, with respect, is all complaints and no solution. For those three years he was, of course, pivotal. He had a very significant and influential position in this parliament with the balance of power. To complain now, when he is effectively irrelevant, is just beyond the pale.
Before I get on to the bill before the House, in respect of the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, one MUA job that might be saved on a coastal shipping vessel potentially will cost two, three or five jobs, often in other unionised workplaces, whether that be at Nyrstar in the member's own electorate or whether that be at places like Norske Skog in my electorate. As Ray Mostogl from Bell Bay Aluminium has articulated more clearly than anyone in this place has done previously, when we lost our international shipping service by virtue of the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012—which, I have no doubt, the member the Dennison supported—his costs of shipping went up 63 per cent. Deadweight tonnage on Australian flagged ships has continued to fall under the changes that were made in 2012. I said in my contribution the other day that I will give the benefit of the doubt to the MUA and even to those on the other side that the bill was well intentioned, but they have failed. Tasmania is the island state in the island nation. It depends—blind Freddy could understand—more on shipping than many other parts of the country. I just simply do not understand how a Tasmanian could come into this parliament and say that losing our international shipping service is a benefit.
Everything this government has done since coming to power in 2013 has been about supporting job seekers and supporting the economy to grow more opportunities for more people. At the end of the day, our system of welfare is one of mutual obligation between the taxpayers of Australia and those recipients. That is the basis of our system, and Australian taxpayers understand and appreciate that. We all know—or, at least, some of us know—that the best form of welfare is a job, whether it be for the individual concerned, their family, the community to which they can be a more constructive contributor or the nation more broadly and the finances of the Treasury.
We understand that the issues for those people who are unable to find a job because of mental health are enormous. But, again, everything this government is doing is to support them. That includes the Innovation and Investment Fund. The member for Denison should know about this because his electorate benefited from that $13 million program. With contributions from the private sector, it turned into $40 million. That created 400 jobs as recently as in the last 12 months in our state of Tasmania. It also includes the $60 million contributed to irrigation schemes in the state. It is not about accessing water in those areas of the state that are dry and that with the inclusion of water can create more products; it is about the surrounding towns. It is about the dairy, vegetables, fruit and finishing of red meat products that can occur. It is about the families that have come to those towns in rural and regional Australia. That is what it is all about. It is not about the TFES, for example. That is $204 million to expand the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. It is not about that economic infrastructure. At the end of the day, it is about enabling our state to compete on a level playing field and create more jobs.
There are also the coastal shipping reforms I have just mentioned. What makes one job on an Australian flagged coastal vessel worth more than one job in the member's own business, for example? What makes it worth more than farmers in my electorate or a job in, as I mentioned before, Norske Skog or Bell Bay Aluminium? I do not understand.
The small business and jobs growth package was focused, as the name suggests, on creating more opportunities for more young people. It was to encourage small business. As the member for Denison rightly said, we depend so much on small businesses within our state. That was a $5.5 billion package in the last budget. It was well received all around Australia because it was about encouraging small businesses to have a go. It was about encouraging small business through the instant asset write-off program that allowed them to immediately write off assets up to the value of $20,000 and tax concessions of 1.5 per cent for incorporated small businesses. And 70 per cent of them are incorporated. There was a $1,000 tax deduction. That was all designed to make those businesses more profitable and give them more incentive to employ more Australians.
There was the renegotiation, for example, of the job services provider contracts. That is not specifically related to the legislation that we have before the House, but it was about not having an up-front payment when you got people on the books. It was about delivering outcomes. That is something that is starting to change. I went into the MAX Employment office in Bridgewater the other day. It is not far from the member's own electorate. They are seeing within their own processes and procedures the things they need to do. Whether it is a part-time job or a seasonal job, there are benefits to the people there. The structure of payment now is that they will get paid only when they get people into work, not when they get them on the books.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the free trade agreements that we have negotiated with South Korea, Japan and China. I have said to Minister Robb that the China agreement could be redescribed as the 'Tasmania-China free trade agreement'. The member for Denison should know that very well. These have enormous benefits to our state, whether it be to the university in the member's own electorate or whether it be to farms, small businesses, agricultural producers and manufacturing businesses within mine. That is everything that this government has been focused on.
The legislation before us today is another effort to encourage young people to get a job. It builds on the successful reform already implemented within the sector last year. These reforms are already working. They have improved attendance at re-engagement appointments with employment services providers from a 65 per cent attendance rate in 2013-14 to more than 90 per cent in June this year.
These very positive reforms have meant a reduction in the average time a job seeker's payment is suspended before they re-engage with the provider from 5.2 business days in September 2014 to 3.1 business days in March this year. This means that more job seekers are taking advantage of the help on offer and receiving their income support as intended and that providers are spending less time reporting noncompliance and more time actually helping job seekers look for work. To me, that make sense.
This latest amendment will pave the way for a simpler and more effective compliance framework to ensure that job seekers are meeting their mutual obligation requirements at every point throughout the job search process. The planned reforms will not only see faster re-engagement and fewer failures in the first instance; they will provide substantive financial savings to the community because of the decrease in non-compliance work required.
Getting job seekers into jobs is the key focus of employment services, but there have been significant weaknesses identified in compliance arrangements for those same job seekers. Under the current system, it can take up to five weeks from the day a job seeker fails to attend a Work for the Dole activity until the penalty is actually deducted from their income support. It can be longer if the job seeker is difficult to contact. Allowing the penalty to be deducted from the very next fortnightly income support payment, where feasible, will help create a stronger link between the failure and the consequence. This should lead to better participation in Work for the Dole activities.
Work for the Dole is, indeed, another a key part of the government's efforts to improve employment services and job seeker's employment prospects. I think across Australia it is a program that has broad general support. To make sure this is successful we have had to ensure that job seekers are attending the training activities ordered for them. Effective penalties applied in a timely manner have had the most success in achieving that. I mentioned mutual obligation. It is the basis of our system of welfare, in this country, between the recipients of that welfare—in the case of job seekers—and the taxpayers of our country.
This bill will not introduce new penalties. Job seekers who fail to participate in an activity, without a reasonable excuse, will still lose one day's pay for each day they fail to attend. This will mean that the penalty will be deducted straight away, rather than in five weeks or more, if they are difficult to contact. In 2013-14 a total of 4,342 job-search related failures were applied, but none resulted in the application of a financial penalty. This is ridiculous and we are moving to remedy and improve this compliance regime.
In the same way, job seekers who refuse to take up suitable job offers are supposed to incur a serious penalty. Currently, only 22 per cent of these job seekers are subject to the penalty, because of waiver provisions. All people have to do, to avoid the penalty, is to agree to participate in extra activities for the duration of the penalty. These are not vulnerable job seekers but have been identified as eminently employable. They have been offered work and have refused it, without good reason, to incur the penalty in the first instance. As I said, mutual obligation is the basis of our system.
Eight-week penalties for refusing work have existed since 2006 but waivers were only introduced in 2009. And guess what? The member for Denison was involved in that. In 2008-09, the year before waivers were introduced, there were 644 serious failures for refusing work. In 2013-14 1,626 such penalties applied. This increase can only be attributed to the removal of the deterrent effect of an eight-week penalty. If we bring back that penalty, fewer job seekers will be penalised. More job seekers will accept work, when offered, and go off-payment, which is in everyone's interest. All Australians should agree with that.
We need to fix the current system of job-seeker compliance, which is too slow and ineffective in responding to job seekers who are not making sufficient efforts to find work. Australians, Deputy Speaker Broadbent, and you know this very well, are fair minded people, but they reject the notion of bludging off the system, off a mate, off a system of mutual obligation—off the taxpayers of Australia. It is unacceptable that it takes months of inadequate job-search efforts before a job seeker faces any real financial or payment consequence. The bottom line is that we want to get as many Australians into work as possible, particularly young Australians.
Unemployment rates in Tasmania, and in my largely rural electorate of Lyons, are among the worst in the country. They are often the worst, particularly, among the young unemployed. This is bad for the economy but worse for the individual. Young Tasmanians need hope that they can look forward to much more than a life without a job. Aspiration. There are many in my state working hard to improve job prospects for our unemployed, from education-and-training facilities and parents—families are critical to the structure—to the Work for the Dole program, coordinators and other service providers. I had the privilege the other day of attending a wonderful Green Army project in my electorate. The attitude there of some of the young people involved will serve them well for the rest of their lives. They have, at last, hope again. They have hope in the future that this country can offer them.
This Social Security amendment will continue to build the framework around strengthening job-seeker opportunities. Australia's income-support system is there as a safety net for people who genuinely cannot find a job, not as an option for those who simply refuse to work.
Before I speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015 I want to remark on what a passionate advocate the member for Lyons is for the community he represents and for Tasmania, more generally.
This bill will amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to support measures announced in the 2015-16 budget to further strengthen the Job Seeker Compliance Framework by providing stronger and more immediate consequences for job seekers who do not meet their mutual obligations. This bill will also simplify compliance provisions in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to assist job seekers better understand their mutual obligations.
This government made a commitment to rein in spending and make more efficient use of taxpayer funds. That is what this bill is about. Australia does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. The budget has forecast that federal government tax revenue will be 22.3 per cent of GDP this financial year. This is well above the 10-year average of 21.7 per cent and just below the 20-year average of 22.5 per cent, equal to the 30-year average and above the 40-year post-Whitlam average of 22 per cent. In fact, the tax-to-GDP ratio is scheduled to increase to levels well above the historical average. The tax-to-GDP ratio is forecast to be 23.4 per cent in 2018-19, a substantial 1.4 percentage points above the long-term 40-year average.
We on this side of the House acknowledge that we cannot tax our way back into surplus. We cannot balance the budget by increasing taxes—we understand that doing this hurts small business and hits families hardest and puts the brakes on our economy. Whilst it is evident that we are going to have to implement changes to our tax system, to address a bracket creep and ensure Australia's global competitiveness, it is equally evident that we have a spending problem. Government is spending too much and not getting the return on its investment that the taxpayer deserves.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, in 2002-03 to 2012-13, government spending grew by 45.2 per cent or 3.8 per cent annually compared to GDP growth of some three per cent. Of total expenses of $398-odd billion estimated for 2013-14, over 34 per cent was spent on social security. Since 2002-03 social security and welfare has contributed 15 per cent to the total growth of spending. In May last year the government's National Commission of Audit recommended that social welfare entitlements be better targeted. This is essential to help reduce government spending. The commission warned that the long-term outlook is ominous due to an unsustainable increase in expenditure commitments. This is a warning we take seriously. Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, wrote that:
Society is indeed a contract. … It is a partnership … not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.
This is a social contract we are obligated to adhere to, and we in the coalition government refuse to renege on that contract. Each and every dollar the government spends must be targeted and must have a tangible impact.
As I have outlined, Australia needs to rein in spending, not to increase taxes, which seems to be the automatic-pilot response of those opposite. It is absolutely critical that we address our spending and tighten accountability across the board. Whilst our comprehensive welfare system is an essential part of our commitment to unlocking the potential of each and every Australian, it is not some sacred cow. Whilst the vast majority of Australians do the right thing when it comes to utilising our social welfare programs, there is a minority who seek to exploit the compassion of the Australian spirit and do not meet their mutual obligations. Current provisions that allow penalties for serious failures to be waived essentially allow job seekers to refuse suitable work with impunity.
The data indicates that job seekers are increasingly taking advantage of the waiver provisions in order to remain on income support rather than accepting a suitable job. In 2009-10, when the waiver provisions were introduced, 45 per cent of penalties for refusing a suitable job were waived and 55 per cent were served. In 2013-14, 78 per cent of penalties were waived and only 22 per cent were served. The availability of the waiver provision is also acting as an incentive for noncompliance. In 2008-09, the year before waivers were introduced, there were 644 serious failures for refusing to accept suitable work and in 2013-14 there were some 1,626 such penalties. It is simply unfair for those on income support to refuse adequate employment in order to maintain their free ride on income support. It is a situation that this government will not abide.
Existing protections such as the reasonable excuse provisions and safeguards for vulnerable job seekers will still apply, and the bill will not change the process used to make decisions as to what constitutes suitable work. A job seeker cannot be penalised for failing to accept a job that they are not capable of doing or for which their employer will not provide training or a job that does not meet the applicable statutory conditions, involves unreasonable commuting or would aggravate a pre-existing medical condition.
The Australian Treasury is not a bottomless pit; there are finite resources when it comes to government funding. For every dollar that is wrongfully taken, a dollar is lost from an area where it is most needed. This is especially true in the social welfare space. There is an old adage which exemplifies the approach the coalition government is taking to this bill: 'That which is freely given has no value.' The bill builds on previous efforts this government has made to ensure recipients of social welfare meet their mutual obligation requirements. Through this bill, this government is putting in place a real framework of accountability and real incentives for job seekers in Australia.
The package of changes in this bill will help to ensure that more effective and consistent compliance arrangements are in place for each stage of a job seeker's pathway back into work. It is important that we elucidate the particular measures in this bill that we are about to enact that will develop a better result for Australian taxpayers and for Australian job seekers. First, the bill simplifies the compliance framework. This government understands that often-complex bureaucratic processes make accessing assistance difficult. Further, this government is not so callous as to enact stricter compliance measures without simplifying the system. The purpose of the bill is not to stop people from accessing assistance but rather to ensure that they are compliant with the system. In order to assist job seekers to better understand their mutual obligation requirements, the bill simplifies the language surrounding failures: it renames all failures resulting in short-term financial penalties as 'no-show no-pay failures'. This change reinforces to job seekers that, across the board, when it comes to participation in the job seeker process—be it interview attendance or turning up to an appointment with a provider or any other organisation—failure to show up and participate will result in penalties. This government is of the mind that if you do not show up you should not expect income support.
The purpose of engaging people in the job seeker process is employment, because this government knows that the best form of welfare is a job. That is why this bill strengthens compliance to an employment pathway plan. When a job seeker fails to enter into an employment pathway plan, that job seeker's participation payment may not be payable until they comply with a further requirement to enter into an employment pathway plan. The employment pathway plan is an essential part of the job seeker's process. It is a process which guides an individual towards employment and off income support, which is the endgame of this process. In order to incentivise compliance, if the job seeker does not have a reasonable excuse for failing to enter into an employment pathway plan, a penalty amount would be able to be deducted from the job seeker's participation payment under provisions made in this bill.
Currently, no financial penalty is imposed for an initial refusal to enter into an employment pathway plan, despite it being a basic qualification requirement for job seekers to receive participation payments. It is ridiculous that, at a preliminary stage of the employment process—entering a plan—there is a complete lack of accountability. With this bill this government is rectifying that situation. This government has nothing but praise for the workers in our social services sector; they do a difficult job, and they do it well. That is why we have taken measures to ensure that, if a job seeker acts in an inappropriate manner during an appointment such that the purpose of the appointment is not achieved, that job seeker's participation payment may not be payable until they attend a new appointment. In addition, if the job seeker does not have a reasonable excuse for acting in an inappropriate manner during the appointment, a penalty amount would be able to be deducted from that job seeker's participation payment. In the coalition we believe in personal responsibility. We understand the importance of imposing consequences for behaving in an inappropriate manner. It is absolutely imperative that there are penalties for behaving inappropriately when engaging in the job seeker process. Failure to impose such penalties simply reinforces such behaviour. Effectively, failing to adequately penalise inappropriate behaviour whilst maintaining income support equates to rewarding such behaviour. That is a situation that had to be rectified, and I am pleased to say that it will be.
This bill also takes steps to increase participation in the job seeker process. Under provisions in this bill, when a job seeker fails to participate in an activity such as training or Work for the Dole, the penalty amount will be able to be deducted from the instalment period in which this type of no-show no-pay failure is determined. This ensures there is appropriate compliance mechanisms when it comes to participation in the job seeker process, which is essential if employment is to be achieved. Crucially, this bill increases the impact of the penalty through more immediate penalties than under the current legislation, which requires that the penalty amount be deducted from a later fortnightly instalment period.
Further, this bill promotes engagement with job searching activities. When a job seeker fails to undertake adequate job searching efforts, a job seeker's payment may not be payable until the job seeker demonstrates adequate effort. Once adequate effort has been demonstrated, a job seeker would receive full back pay. Again, the immediacy of these penalties will have a significant deterrent value and will enhance compliance with mutual obligations. I suspect that it will also have a fairly specific deterrent effect. Currently, it can take at least 14 weeks of ongoing inadequate job search—that is, 14 weeks—before a job seeker's participation payment is impacted in any way. This is simply not good enough.
Whilst the bill takes significant steps to enhance participation with the process of job seeking, it also rectifies significant issues in employment acceptance. The current system simply does not enforce acceptance of employment offers, and it is at this point that many individuals are simply refusing to re-enter the workforce, which perpetuates unemployment and waste of taxpayer funds. Under provisions in this bill, when a job seeker refuses or fails to accept an offer of suitable employment, and has no reasonable excuse for such failure, a job seeker will no longer be able to seek to have the existing eight-week penalty period ended by agreeing to undertake additional activities. This change will affect those job seekers who have shown they can obtain suitable employment but are simply choosing not to work.
This bill delivers a better system of compliance for job seekers. It is part of this government's approach to rein in spending and making government more efficient. This government remains committed to lower taxes and smaller government, and that is why, when it comes to the social welfare space, we advocate effective and accountable processes that will ensure that welfare recipients meet their mutual obligations. This bill is entirely consistent with our values and with the undertakings we announced both prior to our election to office and in this year's budget.
I strongly commend this bill to the House, and I hope it has the support of this place.
Today, I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015. This bill is a testament to the hard work of the member for Cowper, who invested a great deal of time as the Assistant Minister for Employment.
The changes that this bill introduces build on the successful no-show no-pay reforms agreed to by the parliament just last year. The coalition government has taken a responsible position in this bill, and taxpayers expect, I believe, that job seekers meet all of their mutual obligations. Unfortunately, legislation enacted under the previous government has facilitated a dodging of mutual obligation by a minority of job seekers. This bill seeks to address that legislative oversight by Labor and seeks to hold this disengaged minority to account for their mutual obligations as recipients of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. The current state of affairs is not sufficient, and those opposite so often blame the structures of our society and the inequality of outcome. Unlike the coalition, Labor does not believe in personal responsibility, and perhaps that is why the opposition leader can sleep at night.
This government takes a vastly different approach to personal responsibility. We believe in the agency of the individual. We believe in social mobility, and we believe in personal responsibility. This is not a radical position. In fact, it is completely in touch, I believe, with what most—the significant majority—of everyday Australians think and believe. Labor is not ideologically equipped to develop an effective and efficient job seeker compliance framework. The measures taken in this bill are fundamentally consistent with the coalition's longstanding belief in personal responsibility and the innate worth of the individual.
The ALP and the Greens are simply, in my opinion, unable to deliver positive outcomes in this very important public space. I do not doubt the intellectual faculties of the members opposite, but what I do doubt is that the ALP can deliver compliance frameworks that increase accountability for individuals whilst maintaining effective outcomes for job seekers. Hidden under all the spin delivered by those opposite is a fundamental belief that society is the problem—that the structures of society are the cause of the actions of our citizens. I categorically refute this belief. This perverse notion that the individual has no agency in their own affairs is primarily wrong and strikes at the heart of why the ALP and the Greens lack the capacity to deliver accountable and effective compliance measures across the social security space.
This bill seeks to provide better outcomes for all Australians. We, in the coalition, take our obligation to the taxpayer very, very seriously. We understand that our citizens work hard for the money we extract from them in taxes, and that is why we believe in lower, simpler and fairer taxation, something those opposite simply cannot maintain.
Part of our obligation to the Australian taxpayer is to get the most out of each and every dollar we collect. The taxpayers expect nothing less. This bill is utterly consistent with this undertaking. Whilst those opposite did nothing but write blank cheques, cheques they could not pay whilst they were in government, the coalition is committed to ensuring that our expenditure is responsible and delivers better outcomes for the taxpayer and in turn leads to the government providing a surplus for the people of Australia.
We are the party of the hand-up, not the handout, and that is why legislation such as this bill is crucial in delivering better outcomes for Australian workers and job seekers. This bill reflects the deeply held belief in the coalition that Australia's income support system is there as a safety net for people who genuinely cannot find a job. This safety net should be the last resort, not the first option. I repeat: the safety net that the taxpayers of this country provide should be the last resort, not the first option.
Whilst we on this side of the House fundamentally trust in individual enterprise and in smaller government, we also fundamentally believe in accountability. We believe in the responsibility of the individual to their obligations as recipients of the tax dollars of the working public. This bill ensures that the generous social welfare system that we have in place in this country receives due oversight and enacts measures that will preserve the integrity of our social security system.
The legislation that this bill is building on, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Act 2014, saw attendance rates at reconnection appointments for job seekers increase from 65 per cent in 2013 to 90 per cent in June of this year. This is a really important point to note. Another important figure to note is that in 2009-10, when the waiver provision enacted under Labor was first introduced, only 45 per cent of penalties for refusing suitable jobs were waived. We are now faced with waiver rates of 78 per cent in the years of 2013-14.
It is evident that the status quo does not deliver sufficient deterrence to refusing to work. There are currently individuals exploiting the income support system provided to them by hardworking taxpayers, and this bill will hold that disengaged minority to account for their failure to adequately utilise the income support and job seeking program. In a fashion which is utterly consistent with our promises to the Australian people, we are committed to reinvigorating mutual obligation for job seekers in receipt of income support. Importantly, this legislation does not punish those who are doing the right thing by the Australian taxpayer; rather it targets the disengaged minority who choose not to engage with the workplace yet reap the dividend of the endeavour of their fellow citizens. This disengaged minority has for too long been unaccountable. We as legislators, elected by each of our regions across this country, have a duty to the taxpayer to ensure that we are spending their hard-earned money wisely and frugally.
Not only is there a strong economic demand for more accountability in the social welfare space; there is also a strong ethical case for a greater level of mutual obligation for job seekers in receipt of income support. Income support is an essential part of our social welfare system. It should be a hand-up to those who have fallen through the cracks. It is a mechanism which has delivered great outcomes for many Australians over many, many years. But it is not a blank cheque for a disengaged minority hell-bent on exploiting the system. Part of our civic obligation as citizens of Australia is that we contribute to the Commonwealth so that we all may advance together. Whilst it is true that we have an extensive social welfare system which acts as a safety net, it is not an infinite resource that we have at our disposal. In the same way as the government has an obligation to the taxpayer to spend their money wisely, so too do those job seekers on income support. No fair-minded Australian would have a different view to that.
This bill is not, as those opposite continue to suggest, an attack on the socially disadvantaged. No. It is in fact in defence of them. This bill defends the vast majority of Australians on income support. We on this side of the House have the backbone and the courage to make the right decision when it comes to welfare. We strongly believe that whilst we have rights we also, each of us, have responsibilities. We strongly believe that the disengaged minority, who should be proactively seeking employment, are in fact reneging on their responsibility as Australian citizens, and that is a situation that we, the coalition, will not abide. There is an obligation for the government to ensure accountability in the social welfare space. There is no question about that. This is a fundamental responsibility of government.
Let me just address some of the measures in the bill. There are some key measures in this bill that will enable government to deliver on our covenant with the Australian taxpayer. This bill will introduce financial penalties for failing to enter an employment pathway plan. This measure will aid in holding the disengaged minority to account for their actions. The coalition strongly believes in jobs and growth, and this measure will act as an incentive to engage with and utilise an employment pathway plan. The employment pathway plan is a mechanism which delivers better outcomes for job seekers and thus better chances of ultimate employment. This measure delivers accountability for the taxpayers.
This bill introduces financial penalties for failing to behave in an appropriate manner at an appointment—common sense and normal courtesy. We are the party of personal responsibility, and this measure holds the individual to account for their actions. This is targeted not at the majority of our income recipients, who overwhelmingly act in a responsible manner; rather it is an incentive for the disengaged minority to act in accordance with what Australians would call normal, responsible behaviour.
This measure delivers accountability for the individual. This bill delivers more immediate penalties in activities such as Work for the Dole or job interviews. The current arrangements do not facilitate or deliver immediate financial penalties. The lack of immediacy in penalties detracts from the incentive to work and, hence, substantially hampers the efforts of previous legislation. This provision increases more immediate penalties and thus ensures that penalties have the desired effect. Isn't that what legislation should be about—getting results and having the desired effect? Otherwise, it is simply a lot of words on pieces of paper. This provision substantially improves the effect of accountability mechanisms. This bill provides a more streamlined and simplified compliance framework. This bill seeks to make the system easier to navigate. This measure seeks to assist job seekers with understanding the often opaque social services space.
Through removing redundant provisions and through simplifying the language of penalties, job seeker compliance will be far easier to achieve. This is an important measure because it goes hand in hand with the more substantial accountability measures in the bill. This measure will ensure the system is easier to use and delivers the right outcomes for job seekers. It will ensure penalties are delivered to those who are disengaged with the job seeking process, but it will not interfere with those who are seeking it in the right way. A simpler and fairer system will benefit job seekers and taxpayers at the same time, while ensuring better rates of compliance through greater accountability.
This bill delivers on the coalition's undertaking with Australian taxpayers to reinvigorate mutual obligation for job seekers in receipt of income support. It is not an attack on our socially disadvantaged; rather, as I said before, it is a strong defence of them. It strengthens the integrity of our income support system. A more accountable system of income support will remove the unhelpful stigma associated with being a recipient of income support. At the end of the day, we all want more jobs for all Australians. Through preserving the integrity of the income support system, the government is taking steps toward a more sustainable, efficient and effective job seeker scheme. We remain committed to growth and jobs, and that is why this bill is so important. This bill delivers on our commitment to delivering responsible and fair government for all Australians.
We in the coalition strongly believe in giving each and every Australian a hand up, not a hand out, and this bill will deliver better outcomes for all Australians. It is of critical importance that each and every dollar spent in social security delivers greater opportunity. The system should facilitate employment, not promote disengagement with the workforce. This bill goes some way to bringing our job seeker framework back into balance and it is a bill that I firmly and proudly support. I commend the bill to the House.
I too rise this afternoon to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015. I would like to say right from the outset that I am very proud to be part of the Australian government. I am very proud to be a citizen of Australia. I believe that, as well as anywhere in the world, we care for people who find themselves in difficulties and need assistance from others. At no time would I ever support a scheme where I felt that people who had fallen on hard times were going to be victimised or treated poorly. This legislation further enhances the ability for people to get out of the situation of being unemployed and into work. I believe that this bill offers opportunity rather than punishment.
As someone who represents an electorate that has a large number of people who rely on benefits from the government and has high levels of unemployment in some towns, I believe that these changes are necessary for several reasons. The first is that, in families with intergenerational unemployment and disconnect from the workforce, children do not understand where money comes from. They do not tie the fact that their parents and grandparents go to a job every day with having the resources to live their lives. One of the elders in Moree said to me that she believes many of the children do not understand that money does not just come out of an ATM. They do not know why the money is in the ATM; that is just where the family's money comes from. There is no concept as to how the money gets there.
This is part of a raft of things that we have done since we came to government to get people out of the rut of unemployment—with Work for the Dole and other programs, and the Green Army to a certain degree—and to encourage people to take the first step. More often than not, once that first step is made and people get back into the rhythm and system of having a reason to go to work and they experience the satisfaction that comes from a hard day's work, things progress.
In 2005, I was a mayor in a local government area in northern New South Wales. The Howard government at the time introduced Work for the Dole. They drove around our shire and arrived in a bus that had 'Work for the Dole' in big letters on the side. I feel a bit uncomfortable about that. That seems to be discriminatory. After they employed people for several weeks around our local community, doing work on community infrastructure—painting the CWA hall and the like—as a council we put on a lunch, a barbecue. At the barbecue I was chatting to these people who were part of Work for the Dole. I found something entirely opposite to what I expected. Rather than resentment of the fact that they were in a program called Work for the Dole, they were very pleased for the opportunity. They were saying to me, 'You have no idea what it is like—how demoralising it is—to wake up in the morning and not have a reason to leave the house.' The supervisor of this team told me that the original squad he started with did not look like the one he finished with, because as people became involved in these programs pretty soon local employers—retailers, farmers and others—would enquire as to who might be available for more permanent work. That is what we are talking about: getting these people an opportunity to go to work.
One of the things that really sticks in my neck is the idea that there are some jobs that are beneath a person's dignity. There is no work that is beneath anyone's dignity. Before I came here I spent most of my life undertaking manual labour in various forms. I understand that there is not a lot of dignity in crutching sheep or in digging post holes with a crowbar and shovel. But there is a tremendous amount of satisfaction at the end of the day in having achieved something like that.
Let me give you an example. Going back to Gwydir Shire, over a period of time about 10 years ago we started to see an increase in tourists coming to our town—people who were staying in our town and who were seeking out our caravan park. It was not because the tourist officer had gone to a conference, and it was not because of things the major had done. It was because the lady—I will call her Bev—who was in charge of the public facilities in the town took great pride in the work she did. The washrooms, the bathrooms and the caravan park were the cleanest anywhere in New South Wales. That led to an increase in visits to the town. She took great pride in the fact that she was doing this for her local community. I used to tell this story to year 10 students who were going out for work experience. Don't think the job of cleaning the public toilets in town is beneath your dignity, because there can be great rewards in doing that work and in helping others.
In the Parkes electorate we have an interesting situation at the moment. We have just started the grain harvest, and in some places it is a very promising one. At the moment there are young people from all over the world in my electorate driving harvesters, headers, chaser bins and working in the fields bringing in the crops. There are young people from Ireland, Germany, England and the United States all over. At the same time in the country towns around these paddocks we have young, able-bodied people sitting at home, disengaged and not working. If I do one thing in my time as a member of this place, it will be to change that situation. Those people who are disconnected from the workforce are perfectly capable and, given the right opportunities, the right encouragement and the right training I believe they can progress onwards and take up those roles that rightly should be theirs. I put out the challenge to employers in my electorate that if they want to have a functional, progressive and safe community they should make that extra effort and employ local people and encourage them into the workforce.
But the first step in this, sometimes, is actually breaking that cycle. Sometimes you have to be a hard, mean sort of person to achieve this. I do not step away from this legislation at all. If you are able-bodied and you can contribute, I do not believe that staying at home and not doing something to support your community and you country is acceptable. We see that these stronger measures will take away that opportunity. This is coupled with other things we as a government are doing to support young people. I am a great believer that we should be starting to encourage people to think about work, to prepare them with resumes, to help them with birth certificates, drivers licences, or whatever, at as young an age as possible.
One of the things I am immensely proud to be part of—and I think this parliament should also be proud of—is the part played by the Clontarf Foundation. Right across Australia we now have Clontarf Academies collocated in local schools. I will give you the example of the Clontarf Academy at Coonamble, in western New South Wales, where last year three of the young men from there obtained traineeships with a large road construction company in Sydney. Because of the mentoring and the assistance that was given through the people of Clontarf, these young people had the confidence to step up and take on these roles. After a period of training they are now permanent employees, earning very good money. Their families are very proud of them, as they should be.
I believe the federal government has a responsibility to make sure that we can get people engaged so they become valued members of the community. Some people naturally find themselves in periods of disadvantage, through no fault of their own. I still believe that as a country we need to care for those people. I have some advice for some of the bureaucracy and the network that deal with people who are making the step to come into the workforce after being disengaged. It is not easy and there should be compassion, understanding and some flexibility within the guidelines to acknowledge that work on a regular basis is indeed a foreign concept, as sad as it may seem, for some families. We need a carrot-and-stick approach, if you like—a combination of both—but able-bodied people not engaging in meaningful work should not be an option, and this legislation will help with that.
I support this legislation. I am very hopeful and, indeed, I am starting to see a real change in the communities in my electorate, particularly with the younger people as they seek to be engaged. Young lads from Moree high school are doing traineeships with GrainCorp, working through the wheat harvest, one day a week instead of school and over the weekends and holidays, with a real future in front of them. We are seeing that right around western New South Wales. I support this bill and I hope these strengthening measures will have the desired result to get people back up and working.
The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015 will create a simpler and more effective compliance framework to ensure that job seekers are meeting their mutual obligation requirements at every point throughout the job-seeking process. The bill builds on the successful reforms we made last year, which improved attendance at re-engagement appointments with employment service providers from 65 per cent attendance in the 2013-14 year to over 90 per cent in 2015. Those reforms have resulted in a reduction in the average time a job seeker's payment is suspended before they re-engage with their provider. Between September 2014 and March 2015, the average payment suspension duration fell from 5.2 to 3.1 business days. These outcomes are good news for everyone. More job seekers are doing the right thing and taking advantage of the help on offer and receiving their income support as intended. Providers are spending less time reporting noncompliance and more time actually helping job seekers with practical tasks like looking for work.
This is why the government is seeking to apply the same principles that underpinned those reforms to other mutual obligation requirements. Immediate payment suspension with no back payment for those with no reasonable excuse for their noncompliance will be extended to job seekers who miss appointments with specialist providers or who refuse to enter a job plan. This should see faster re-engagement, as it has for provider appointments. It should also ultimately result in fewer failures in the first place because of the more immediate and stronger deterrent effects. The current safeguards in the system will ensure that no-one is penalised for failing to attend an appointment if they give prior notice of a reasonable excuse; nor will anyone be penalised for refusing to enter a job plan if they have a genuine excuse for their failure to comply or it has unreasonable terms in it. The bill provides that, if a job seeker acts in an inappropriate manner during an appointment, their income support payment may not be payable until they attend a new appointment and participate appropriately. If they do not have a reasonable excuse, a penalty amount would be able to be deducted from their payment. Again, these changes utilise the successful no-show no-pay principles introduced last year and would bring the treatment of inappropriate behaviour at an appointment in line with existing treatment of inappropriate behaviour at an activity. This bill will also allow penalties applied for not attending activities without a reasonable excuse to be deducted from a job seeker's next fortnightly payment instead of the one after. Again, this change is based on the principle that a more immediate link between a non-compliant action and its financial consequences will be more effective in ensuring compliance in the first place. It is also a change the then Labor government made for other short-term penalty types in 2011.
I think everyone would agree that looking for work is the most important part of a job seeker's mutual obligation requirements. It gives job seekers the best chance of getting off income support. For this reason, we need to fix the current system, which is too slow and ineffective in responding to job seekers who are not making sufficient efforts to find work. It is unacceptable that it takes months of inadequate job search efforts before a job seeker faces a real payment consequence. This bill will allow us to take a very simple approach. If you are a job seeker and you make insufficient or inadequate job search efforts without good reason, you will have your payment immediately suspended. Meeting the requirements you have missed will result in immediate and full back payment. This means you will not incur a lasting penalty, but how long your payment is held up is up to you.
Australia's income support system is there as a safety net for people who genuinely cannot find a job, not as an option for those who simply refuse to work. Under current compliance arrangements, an eight-week non-payment penalty can be applied to job seekers who refuse work without good reason. Unfortunately, amendments introduced by the previous government mean that job seekers can have this penalty completely waived just by agreeing to undertake some extra activity. It is clear that these penalties no longer provide an adequate deterrent to refusing work, because job seekers know they are able to return to payment with virtually no consequence. This bill will remove the waiver so that all job seekers who refuse an offer of suitable work without an acceptable reason will serve an eight-week non-payment period. This change will ensure that job seekers face immediate and real consequences for turning down offers of work.
Finally, I would like to reiterate that this bill will retain all the current safeguards that are designed to ensure that vulnerable job seekers do not incur any financial penalties inappropriately. Job seekers with identified vulnerabilities will continue to be flagged on the IT systems used by the Department of Human Services and employment service providers. Penalties will not impact those whose failure to meet a requirement is beyond their control—for instance, where they were taken ill or had an unexpected caring commitment—and, where reasonable, they gave prior notice of this. Employment service providers will still have the discretion not to report a failure to the Department of Human Services. All decisions involving financial penalties will continue to be made by the Department of Human Services and there will be no change to appeal rights.
We have listened to Labor's points in the debate and I note that this bill has been referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. I acknowledge the amendments proposed by the member for Franklin. The government will give them detailed consideration in the Senate.
Question agreed to, Mr Wilkie dissenting.
Bill read a second time.
I thank those members who contributed to the debate, particularly the members from this side, who, I know, are very passionate about this part of policy. As I said in my contribution on the second reading, there are some aspects of this bill that Labor is prepared to support—those amendments that more closely align the date of noncompliance to penalties and/or suspensions—but we are not prepared to support some of the harsher measures in this bill that could further disadvantage vulnerable job seekers. Labor is looking forward to the report on this bill from the Senate committee in late November and the evidence from stakeholders on how they believe the bill will operate. I am pleased to hear the minister's comments that the government is seriously looking at the amendments that Labor has put forward and will negotiate with Labor on the bill. Given that Labor will not be supporting some of the harsher measures, which we believe will not assist job seekers, I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (19), as circulated in my name, together.
Leave granted.
I move opposition amendments (1) to (19) together:
(1) Schedule 1, items 10 to 16, page 4 (line 25) to page 5 (line 31), omit the items.
(2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 6 (lines 7 to 12), omit the item, substitute:
18 Paragraph 42SA(1)(c)
Repeal the paragraph.
(3) Schedule 1, item 19, page 6 (line 15), omit "Note 1", substitute "Note".
(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 6 (line 16), omit note 2.
(5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 7 (table item 1), omit the table item.
(6) Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (table item 6), omit the table item.
(7) Schedule 1, item 31, page 9 (lines 13 to 15), omit the item.
(8) Schedule 1, item 34, page 9 (line 24) to page 10 (line 10), omit the item.
(9) Schedule 1, item 35, page 10 (lines 14 and 15), omit "or to entry into employment pathway plans".
(10) Schedule 1, item 36, page 10 (lines 18 and 19), omit "or to entry into employment pathway plans".
(11) Schedule 1, items 38 and 39, page 10 (line 22) to page 11 (line 10), omit the items.
(12) Schedule 1, item 40, page 11 (line 11), omit "Subsection42SC(3)", substitute "Subsections42SC(2) and (3)".
(13) Schedule 1, item 50, page 12 (lines 23 to 25), omit paragraph (3C)(a).
(14) Schedule 1, item 50, page 12 (line 26), omit "that table", substitute "the table in subsection 42SA(2)".
(15) Schedule 1, item 50, page 12 (line 30), omit "or 6".
(16) Schedule 1, item 55, page 13 (line 12), omit "42T(3C)(a), (b),", substitute "42T(3C)(b),".
(17) Schedule 1, item 74, page 15 (line 24) to page 16 (line 5), omit subitems (3) and (4).
(18) Schedule 1, item 74, page 16 (lines 9 and 10), omit subitem (6).
(19) Schedule 1, item 74, page 16 (line 17), omit "38, 39,".
The question is that opposition amendments (1) to (19) be agreed to.
The question now is that this bill be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That order of the day No. 7, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name that:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.
(2) Schedule 2, page 21 (line 1) to page 26 (line 13), omit the Schedule.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Throsby has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendments be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
This is the second time that the bill has come before the House, albeit in another form, and, we say, a symptom of a government that is in chaos. Our support for much of the bill is straightforward. Labor is generally supportive of most of the technical amendments in the bill. We support the technical components contained within it. We support the clarification of the role of the High Level Health Claims Committee. We support the need for notices to be published online. We support the renaming of the 'ministerial council' to the Forum on Food Regulation, or the forum—a sensible amendment. And we support the clarification of the appointment process for the CEO. And, of course, we support the work of Foods Standards Australia and New Zealand and the men and women who act in the service of public health by appropriately regulating and maintaining a safe food system in Australia. Indeed, Labor is supportive of the vast majority of the bill.
These amendments are largely mechanical in nature. A significant amendment is to remove references to the defunct Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council and replace them with references to the Australia and New Zealand Forum on Food Regulation, which replaced it during 2011. It makes perfect sense that we bring the legislature up to date with the existing regime. A significant change is to allow Food Standards Australia and New Zealand to inform government agencies that it believes have an interest in its actions rather than every agency, which is currently defined within the act. Currently, each of the following agencies are required to be notified by FSANZ of a range of actions: a department of State of the Commonwealth, the CEO of the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Gene Technology Regulator, the department of state of each state and territory that is primarily responsible for public health in that jurisdiction, all relevant state or territory food and health authorities, a department of state of New Zealand, the New Zealand department of health, and any relevant New Zealand food authorities. It is an exhaustive list.
Labor believes that the change proposed by the government is benign. This change does not preclude any other government agency from requesting FSANZ to inform them of their relevant actions, nor does it preclude FSANZ from continuing to inform them. It will remove the requirement that every notification be sent to each defined agency on every occasion. Further, FSANZ will still be required to publicly report on its website about its consideration of food regulatory measures so that the information will always be accessible to those who have an interest in it, including the public.
Labor has objections to the changes to the composition of the board which are contained within the bill. For the purposes of clarity, I specifically mention Labor's support for item 127 in the bill, which amends section 128(3) and (4) of the act. This corrects an error and clarifies that it is the board and not the minister which appoints the CEO of Foods Standards Australia and New Zealand. We support that provision. Our objections to changes to the board composition do not extend to the government's amendments to section 128(3) and (4). Let us be very clear: we support them.
I will say a little about the role of the board of FSANZ. The board sets the culture and the direction of the agency. It is the key decision-making body in FSANZ charged with developing and implementing the food code. It approves the draft variations to the food code. The board must meet at least five times a year. This year to date it has met six times. It has approved 15 draft variations to the food code, ranging from maximum residue limits to voluntary addition of vitamin D in breakfast cereals to Gluten Claims about Foods containing Alcohol. The board has a key role in the food safety system. Labor, therefore, does not support changes to the composition of it on the basis that the board is currently finely balanced. Labor does not support the bill in its current form.
This bill would make a number of changes, principally to the composition of the board, which Labor seeks to amend. In moving these amendments, Labor seeks the House's agreement that the FSANZ board composition remains unchanged. We are concerned that the minister is given discretion to appoint a bloc of members to the board from a range of expertise criteria. These include science, industry and consumer rights. Our concern is that if the minister were to appoint a bloc of consumer rights members, for instance, the board may lose its focus on public health; or, similarly, if a bloc of food industry members were appointed, we are concerned that the board would become captive to those it regulates. We are concerned that, by omitting the National Health and Medical Research Council nominee from the composition of the board, we may well diminish expertise in relation to the conduct of trials, scientific rigour, the quality of evidence and a level of independence and objectivity. Replacing the NHMRC nominee with a science nomination does not replace the independence of the NHMRC, because an appointee nominated because of their understanding or expertise as a scientist may well be working for a commercial laboratory or perhaps have scientific qualifications but may not be actively engaged in research.
The changes to the board overall are of deep concern to Labor. Labor is concerned that there is a reduction in the minimum number of public health and science based and NHMRC positions on the board. In fact, they are cut in half from four to two. Potentially, however, the new maximum number of appointees from consumer focus rises from one to four, and those from food industry on the board stand to double from two to four, depending on the discretion of the minister of the day. Potentially four members out of seven ministerial appointees could actually come from industry. Combine that with section 116(1)(c) of the new legislation, which gives the New Zealand minister the capacity to appoint two members from industry, and section 116(1)(a), which permits the chair to be from a food industry background, we are concerned that, however unlikely, there is at least a mathematical possibility that seven members of the 12-member board could in fact come from an industry background. This may not, on its own, represent a capture of the regulator by those it regulates, but it does highlight a deeply concerning shift away from science and from public health and a disruption to the finely balanced board as we know it.
In an article in 2012 called The complexity of regulatory capture: Diagnosis, causality and remediation, Sidney Shapiro had this to say:
Deciding whether an agency is captured can be complicated. In some situations, such as the BP oil spill, there is an abject failure to protect the public in circumstances where regulated entities had considerable influence over the agency, suggesting a clear case of capture. In other situations, an agency adopts policies favored by regulated entities, but the regulatory issues are contestable, making it unclear whether the policies constitute regulatory failure.
I raise this to highlight what could very well become a situation where the prescribed balance under the act gives way to disproportionate influence, even without a numerical majority on the board, of industry groups over the agency. There are times when the food industry differs in views from government, consumers and, indeed, FSANZ itself. I make no criticism of this. It is entirely the role of being a strong advocate for the interests of industry. FSANZ and, indeed, all members of this place have a higher purpose—and that is the public interest.
Creating a board with disproportionate influence of this group or any other group is not conducive to an independent board with a scientific and public health capacity to adequately deal with the challenges that we know the FSANZ board must deal with. In saying this, I do not malign any group or any representative on the board. I want to make it clear that the Australian food industry operates with the highest standards, produces some of the world's highest food standards and is regarded as, typically, very cooperative and engaged with government. I highlight the participation of 26 food industry companies in the front-of-pack labelling initiative as a demonstration of their social responsibility and commitment to decent ethical standards. So do not for a moment misinterpret what I have said. My criticism is of the government and the minister, and that this provision in schedule 2 of the bill is unweighted. These changes represent a reduction in the value of science at the heart of health regulation.
Labor believe that the current board composition serves the nation and the organisation well. We do not pretend that the juggling of expertise on the board is not a difficult challenge for the minister, whoever the minister is from time to time. However, we are concerned that, by granting so much flexibility, the board may lose its focus or its independence. Should there have been an argument for a change to the composition to the board, we have not heard it. The government has failed to outline a case why this change should occur. And, so, we cannot support it.
If the minister had a perfect track record in this regard, we might have a different disposition. We might be less concerned. But this is not the case. Indeed, one of the first acts of the newly minted minister was to pull down the Health Star Rating website. The Health Star Rating website had been produced with years of consultation between government, food and health agencies, consumers and industry. Indeed, on 11 February 2014, in a response to a question from Senator Wong in the other place on why the Health Star Rating website had been removed, the minister responsible told the Senate that the website had been 'inadvertently placed' in the first place. Documents obtained by The Australian under freedom of information laws and reported on 16 April 2014 indicated that the minister received advice from her department a week before the website had been launched. So it is hard to reconcile the statements by the minister and the paper trail that followed.
The minister was, of course, censured by 37 votes to 31 in March last year in the Senate for refusing to produce documents that would have demonstrated whether any measures were put in place to manage the conflict of interest in her office and for misleading the Senate. As Senator Wong said during the debate on the censure motion:
… the Senate, the press gallery and the Australian public have been treated with contempt by an Assistant Minister for Health who has an unhealthy tendency to mislead.
It is the very same minister that is now asking the parliament for permission to appoint a large section of the FSANZ board from any prescribed categories. In asking for this permission, the minister gives absolutely no justification why this change to the composition of the board should proceed. We may as well have been asked to accept with a wink and a nod—'Trust me; I'll do the right thing.' I must make the point that it makes no difference who the minister is from time to time. The balances that have been put in place, carefully crafted and placed within the act have served the country and, indeed, all parties to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand arrangements very, very well.
The importance of consumer confidence in the food regulation system is absolutely critical. The perceived change to the independence of the board may undermine confidence in the system. One of the key roles of FSANZ and its board is to give Australians confidence that the food they eat is safe. Food should be safe; sometimes it is not. We know that from the recent food-borne hepatitis A outbreak this year, where 28 people contracted hepatitis A from the Australian food supply chain, it is critically important to maintain food safety. There have been examples where people have tragically died from the food that they have eaten. It is our job as legislators, it is our job as parliamentarians, to give as much confidence to the industry and to the consumers as possible.
One of the key roles that FSANZ—and, critically, the FSANZ board—plays is to give confidence to Australians that, whilst there may have been an incident, the system remained safe, independent and informed by science and a public health agenda. Ensuring that consumers and industry are represented but not dominating this board strengthens it, bringing with them key perspectives. So even if the minister were to give an assurance of 'Trust me, I won't mess with the board, I won't use this discretion that you have given me,' the Australian public will be left with the question: can we trust a board that may have lost its finely-honed balance that is protected within the act itself?
It is the view of Labor that confidence in the food system may well be undermined by these changes. So Labor's proposed amendment deletes the changes to the composition of the board. If accepted, the board will continue in its current composition, finely balanced and independent. We call upon the minister, the government and all members opposite to do the sensible thing and adopt the sensible amendments proposed by Labor. Labor believes that Australians have the right to know that the food they eat is safe. The security of the Australian food supply chain is of critical importance to Australians, and the Australian government must act to ensure that this remains a reality.
The bill does nothing to improve food safety. Indeed, the public need be forgiven for wondering why changes to the composition of the board are needed. Why is the minister, who was responsible for interfering with the health star-rating website, now interfering with the board of the food regulator? There is much within this bill that we can support, but we call upon the government to accept our sensible, modest amendments to the legislation that is before the House. Had this bill proceeded in its original form—when the minister introduced it into the House a few months ago—it would enjoy our full-throated support, but today we cannot support it in its current form. I commend the bill in an amended form to all members of the House.
I rise to speak to the bill in its substantive form rather than the amendment, but I will touch briefly on the amendment. As we all know, the food industry is extremely important for our country on a number of fronts. We take pride in producing food of the highest quality for domestic consumption as well as for export markets. We are internationally recognised for our premium food, and that is why the framework of the food industry is vital to our success.
The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment (Forum on Food Regulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015 is an administrative bill to amend the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, the FSANZ Act. The administrative changes include: updates to the FSANZ Act to reflect current operations of Food Standards Australia New Zealand; and a name change to the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation or the Forum, which was previously known as Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation. Improving the clarity and operation of the legislation is important. It will describe the relationship between the Forum and FSANZ, such as when the Forum can request FSANZ to undertake work and provide information to assist it to make relevant decisions. It can also describe when FSANZ must publicly notify the approval of a draft standard or draft variation.
There are also amendments intended to improve regulatory efficiency and provide greater clarification for businesses and FSANZ by removing uncertainty and improving consistency in the way in which the FSANZ Act outlines procedures for the consideration of food regulatory measures. The current FSANZ Act requires FSANZ to consult with specified government agencies in undertaking its processes, which means that FSANZ must consult with over 20 agencies on issues that may not be relevant to them. So there is definitely broad consultation here and this can delay processes and introduce inefficiencies. We are about removing compliance and red tape obligations where practicable and appropriate.
The current FSANZ Act is also inflexible with the way that nominations for the FSANZ board can be sought. Here I would comment on the member for Throsby's contribution. Broader industry involvement and flexibility is not a bad thing when it is appropriately determined and targeted—bringing expertise and wider benefits to the board are reasonable improvements. Flexibility will help to address FSANZ's future work requirements, and that is one of the key points—looking at what is relevant and important for the work that FSANZ does. It is important that there is flexibility when determining who should be on its board, and here expertise and skills sets are critical.
We all agree that consumers must have confidence in our regulatory frameworks and in our food standards and supply chains. I want to take a few minutes to talk about the future of our food industry, because it is very bright. On the most recent data, Australian agrifood exports reached almost $40 billion, with nine of the top 10 destination markets in Asia. Global food consumption, we know, is expected to grow 75 per cent between 2007 and 2050, with 40 per cent of the increased demand coming from China. Australia's proximity to Asia and its reputation as a safe and secure source of quality produce and premium products ensure the country is well placed to capitalise on this growth.
Moreover, the three free trade agreements with China, South Korea and Japan, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes Malaysia and Singapore, will all provide greater opportunities for our food exporters with tariffs reduced on beef, dairy, seafood, horticultural and many other foods. A look at the growth over recent years is evidence of the strength and future potential of our food industry. Here are a few quick statistics: from 2007-08 to 2012-13, China, grew by close to 20 per cent, Indonesia by 13 per cent, Korea by 10 per cent and Malaysia and Singapore by seven per cent.
What have been the benefits for local companies and jobs? In my electorate, Gaganis Brothers, which is a national wholesaler of quality foods, currently employs 100 people, but it is undertaking multimillion dollar expansion that will create 50 new jobs. Thomas Foods, which is the largest privately owned meat processing facility in Australia, currently employs 3,000 workers and is expanding its Murray Bridge food plant. Soaring demand for almonds has helped AlmondCo increase its turnover by 40 per cent since 2012-13. It is now exporting to India, China and the Middle East. I noted with interest this morning that Qatar Airways will begin daily flights to Adelaide to export lobsters and other seafood. In closing, I congratulate everyone for the work they do in the food industry.
It being almost 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting with four engaging young people from the Micah Challenge, who were in parliament to speak to MPs about the importance of the new sustainable development goals in fighting poverty, addressing inequality and building a more secure, prosperous and sustainable world. They spoke about the success of the MDGs in halving child mortality and significantly reducing maternal mortality, while noting that much remains to be achieved, especially here in our region. In particular, climate change is an existential threat for our Pacific neighbours, and Australia needs to do much more ahead of the Paris climate talks in December than the present inadequate emissions reduction target of 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, which is almost at the bottom of developed nations. The students also called for action on multinational tax avoidance and the reversal of planned cuts to Australian aid, and for Australia to set a target of 0.7 per cent of GNI by 2030—a modest request, in my view, given that this was a bipartisan target only a few years ago.
Today I also met with representatives of the International Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Consortium and Marie Stopes International concerning the SDGs—in particular the goals on gender equality and health. I was informed that the health sector, including sexual and reproductive health, has borne much of the brunt of the Australian government's devastating $11 billion cuts to Australian aid. This would appear to be counterproductive given that the evidence indicates that for every $1 invested in sexual and reproductive health there is an economic return of between $20 and $120. Family planning is therefore one of the most cost-effective investments that can be made in global health and development. (Time expired)
Last Sunday I attended the inaugural Cyprus Community Festival held in my electorate. It was a wonderful celebration of Cypriot culture—fine dancing, food and an exhibition on the people and history of Cyprus. I want to congratulation the President of Cyprus Community, Christos Ioannou, the secretary, Minas Loucas, and their team of volunteers on a wonderful festival.
Since being elected I have been warmly welcomed by the Cypriot community, and Sunday afternoon was no exception. My family, who also attended, recognised a number of friendly faces and especially enjoyed the traditional dancing. It was pleasing to see the involvement of one of the soccer clubs in my electorate, the Adelaide Cobras, at the festival. I have visited the club a number of times, attending their games and club events. The federal government has also provided funding to improve their oval in Plympton.
I want to thank the organisers for allowing me to join to celebrate and to share the traditional Cypriot culture. As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Cyprus, the festival was of particular interest to me. In my role, I have met with the Cypriot High Commissioner to Australia on a number of occasions in Canberra to discuss what the Australian government is doing in Cyprus. As a good friend of Cyprus, Australia has supported and continues to support the UN-mediated efforts to reunify Cyprus. Since the establishment of the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus in 1964, Australia has deployed a contingent of police to carry out important peacekeeping and humanitarian work across the buffer zone which divides the island. Over 1,000 Australian police officers have served, and it will continue from the federal budget to extend the AFP deployment for a further two years, until 2017. (Time expired)
It was a great pleasure last week to be back in the Pilbara and amongst that beautiful red landscape and all those great characters. We were talking Pilbara and northern development at the CEDA conference. There are incredible value-add opportunities in the cattle industry that will grow jobs, which in turn will underpin the development of the North. Bruce Cheung from Pardoo Station told us about his plan for an exclusively Pilbara beef brand for the region and the extensive breeding research taking place on his station to get the best quality meat for emerging markets. Young agriculturalist Tilwin Westrup is doing the business case for the production of a special dried beef product for northern China. Nicola Forrest reported on the commitment of the Minderoo team to irrigate for fodder production so cattle can be finished off and processed in WA. And, on the Kimberley Aboriginal station of Mowanjum, the irrigated-fodder crops have just come on, and they are celebrating the opportunity of getting more jobs out of their pastoral activities. Beef from the Pilbara and Kimberley can be so much more than a generic commodity. We can exploit the clean, green environment and our scientific capabilities to develop a finished product that is fully branded and produces greater returns and more jobs than we will get from live export.
There have been decades of discussions, forums and thought bubbles on how to reinvigorate the city of Gosford. In the last few weeks we have finally seen a giant step forward to help make this a reality, a reality that will deliver 600 new jobs into Gosford in an A-grade centre of excellence—600 opportunities for people to work locally. The centre of excellence will be built on a portion, less than 30 per cent, of the old Gosford Public School site—a portion subdivided through Gosford City Council back in May.
You would expect members opposite to back a better future for Gosford, but instead Labor would prefer to drive a cacophony of false claims about how the 600 jobs will supposedly prevent any hope of seeing a performing arts centre also built in Gosford, simply to create a smokescreen for their own anti-jobs and anti-infrastructure agenda. It is a crying shame. As I fought for 600 jobs in Gosford, I will also fight for a performing arts centre for Gosford, a centre that the New South Wales government and Gosford City Council announced plans for four years ago on crown land adjacent to, not on, the public school site. As the Central Coast Express Advocate editorial said in 2012, 'Surely no-one opposes new commercial development in the heart of Gosford.' We have been crying out for it for years. Unfortunately Labor does, so it can drive its own anti-jobs agenda.
This week is Anti-Poverty Week, a week to raise awareness about the causes and consequences of poverty and hardship around the world. Here in Australia the proportion of people living in poverty continues to increase. The 2014 ACOSS Poverty in Australia report found that an estimated 2.5 million Australians, including 600,000 children, are living below the internationally accepted poverty line. Single parents and increasingly single women aged over 50 are at higher risk of experiencing poverty. Family violence is one of the most common factors in homelessness amongst women and children. Victims of family violence are three times more likely to receive the minority share of the assets after a broken relationship, putting increased pressure on already stretched front-line support services for women. Despite support services being stretched to their limit, tremendous work continues to occur on the ground, including in my electorate of Newcastle.
Today, I would like to particularly acknowledge and highlight the work of Nova for Women and Children in Newcastle. Nova offer support options for women and children who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness, and they see firsthand the consequences of poverty on our most vulnerable people. As I speak, they are hosting an open day and barbecue in Newcastle to highlight issues of poverty and hardship in the Newcastle community. I thank them for their ongoing advocacy and the work they do to support women and children in need.
When I first moved into my office in Parliament House two years ago, I decided to turn it into a showcase of all things Braddon. I showcase the sweetest honey that bees can produce, sea salt harvested from the pristine waters of King Island, cherries, chocolates, whiskey and cheese—I also showcase models of the most advanced mining vehicles produced in Australia. Every person who visits my office gets a taste of the north-west of Tasmania. Tonight it is your lucky night, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, because the Tasmanian federal Liberal team will once again commandeer parliament's Great Hall for Flavours of Tasmania, showcasing Tasmania's first-class produce and products to the nation. We can say of all the produce to be showcased tonight, there is no debate that the best of the best comes from the north-west.
I will be hosting a stall on behalf of some of these producers. Visitors can sample award-winning Blue Hills honey from Mawbanna or pickled octopus from T.O.P. Fish in Tasmania. They can sample our champion cheeses and wash them down with Henry's ginger beer from Penguin, or sample juice or cider from Spreyton Fresh. They can finish the night off with the internationally award-winning Hellyers Road whisky.
I take advantage of every opportunity to tell the people of Australia about our amazing produce. I welcome everybody tonight—come one, come all. I encourage all members to taste Tasmania.
In recent consultation in Indi, access to quality health services was nominated as a top priority. Today I am delighted to congratulate Albury Wodonga Health. In the last 12 months, under CEO Sue O'Neill, chair Lou Lieberman and the board, Albury Wodonga Health has been turned around, recording a profit of $1.2 million. It is a fantastic result because it is the first profit since the merger of Albury-Wodonga hospitals in 2009. The focus on elective and emergency care has helped the number of patients staying in the emergency department for more than 24 hours to drop and an additional operating theatre at the Albury hospital has had a positive result.
Albury Wodonga Health is one of the largest employers in the region, with more than 2,000 permanent and part-time staff responsible for 286 beds. I would also like to note the partnership between Albury Wodonga Health, the Victorian and New South Wales governments and GenesisCare to deliver world-class oncology treatment to over 700 cancer patients in north-east Victoria and southern New South Wales. It is services like Albury Wodonga Health that demonstrate that we can work together across the Albury-Wodonga divide, New South Wales and Victoria, with Commonwealth support and deliver high quality, fantastic services in our community. I say to all at Albury Wodonga Health, great job, well done, we are so proud of you.
Fast, reliable broadband is particularly important in my rural electorate of O'Connor, where more than 2,300 constituents are connected to the Interim Satellite Service. The Interim Satellite Service has been a huge disappointment, and that is why I have been fighting for a better service for my constituents since I was elected to the seat. I was particularly pleased to see the successful launch of the long-term satellite, Sky Muster, from the Guiana Space Centre in French Guiana on 1 October. When the service is available in the second quarter of next year, my constituents will be able to access speeds of 25 megabits per second for downloads and five megabits per second for uploads. This is great news for students trying to access distance education, for farmers conducting business and for isolated constituents accessing government online services such as e-health and completing their online tax return. I recently visited a local constituent, Kim Gardner, at the Tree Elle Retreat in Denmark. She is just one of many residents who is looking forward to connecting to the satellite in 2016 so that she can provide a great wireless service for her customers.
The Kalgoorlie tracking station I visited last week will play a critical role in monitoring the new NBN satellite, and is one of only two manned stations across the country that will guide of this satellite. I am proud of this federal government for delivering on this $2 billion satellite project for residents of O'Connor. Combined with the continued rollout of the fixed line and fixed wireless networks, along with our mobile phone black spot program, the people of O'Connor are experiencing a revolution in our communications .
On Sunday 20 September I was delighted to attend the Taste of Coogee festival at Goldstein Reserve, right in the heart of Coogee. In its third year, this terrific beach-side community and family event has gone from strength to strength, with people coming from far and wide to sample and participate in the great food, wine and entertainment that is available in the mainly small businesses in and around Coogee. This year's festival featured a variety of stalls from local businesses such as Poke Hawaiian sushi, the Coogee Pavilion, the Coogee Legions Club and La Spiaggia restaurant with amazing Italian, Spanish, Indian and Japanese cuisine. The crowd of around 20,000 was also kept entertained by great local acts like the Franky Valentine, the Latin singer Richard Fernandez, local singer Holly Summers-Clark and the John Field Band, and the Martini Club finished off the day.
But more than just food and entertainment, the event this year raised an incredible $26,000 for the Prince of Wales Hospital Foundation's Richie Benaud Cancer Fund in honour of the legendary cricket player and commentator who of course was a very proud Coogee local. I congratulate all those concerned with the organisation of the event, particularly the small businesses that supported this event in our community, the wonderful patrons and particularly the Coogee Chamber of Commerce, Bernadette Summers and Brenton 'BJ' McHatton.
The Monash Freeway upgrade has been a huge issue in my electorate of La Trobe. So many residents have asked me over the last six months to do something about it, and that is precisely what we are planning to do. Why is it required? Each day in the city of Casey over 46,000 people use the Monash, as well as another 1,300 who travel past the CBD to the western suburbs. These figures do not include those residents living in the Shire of Kardinia or the Yarra Ranges, so the number of people using the Monash every day from my electorate could be increased by another 100,000 people. We need to do something about this, and I raised this issue with the minister Greg Hunt who immediately got behind the proposal. We are now looking at fixing the Monash Freeway, which will be a great initiative for Victoria. I have also raised this issue with Prime Minister Turnbull.
I am distributing a survey in my electorate and I want residents to fill it in for two reasons. First, I need them to show their support that the Monash is a big issue for the residents of La Trobe and in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne. This will put pressure on the state Labor government to also contribute to the funding. Secondly, I want to know about other transport issues which concern residents of La Trobe. We have a Prime Minister who is very interested in addressing their concerns about public transport.
I rise today to share with the House the Wyndham Eid Festival, which I attended on 27 September. It was a fantastic day, a beautiful sunshiny Melbourne day. I would like to congratulate the Wyndham Eid Festival committee and the president, Abdul Mujeeb, for all of the work they put into our inaugural festival. It was a fantastic day, as I said. It celebrated the cultural diversity of the Muslim community in Wyndham and the cultural diversity of Wyndham more generally, and it brought together families from across the city—12,000 was the estimate of those that attended that day. It was a fabulous day.
It was marred the next week by the terrible things that occurred in Bendigo, where the United Patriots Front sent all the wrong messages about marvellous, multicultural Melbourne and the way we like to live in Victoria. I would like to put on record my appreciation for Labor Premier Daniel Andrews' strong words condemning those people who want to destroy the happy, multicultural, inclusive society that we have in Victoria. I am very proud to represent a seat where so many people come from around the world to share their lives, to build their futures together, to build harmony and to build a great society.
It is with much appreciation that I rise today to speak on National Carers Week, a week when we say to all those carers, seen and unseen, how much we appreciate them—their time, their dedication and their selflessness—whether caring for a loved one, a neighbour or a friend. This week comes some 23 years after the first Carers Awareness Week in 1992 titled Carers Need Care Too!
With 2.7 million people in Australia who provide unpaid care and support to family members and friends, anyone at any time can be a carer. More than 1.5 million of these carers are of working age, with 520,000 carers over the age of 65. Some 300,000 carers are under the age of 24 and, surprisingly, 150,000 carers are under the age of 18. In New South Wales there are approximately 850,000 carers. Based on ABS 2011 Census data, there were some 13,637 people who were unpaid carers in the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains in the electorate of Macquarie.
People require care for many reasons: illness, mental illness, challenges, addictions, recuperations from various kinds of illness, and, most importantly, disability. A report launched by Carers Australia here in Parliament House this August revealed that the replacement value of Australia's unpaid carers is $60.3 billion per year—some $1 billion every week. They do not want accolades for their selfless work, but this work is appreciated. (Time expired)
I stand here to congratulate the Hawthorn Football Club on its 13th AFL grand final—indeed, the third in a row. I do that as a proud Tasmanian with the association that Hawthorn has with Tasmania—we call them the Tassie Hawks. We have had that proud association with the Hawthorn Football Club since 2007 when they began playing four games a year at Aurora Stadium, in the member for Bass's electorate. As a Tasmanian, I would like to claim some of the credit for Hawthorn Football Club's success because they have won 16 out of the last 17 games they have played at Aurora Stadium. I am sure the home ground advantage of Aurora has been part of Hawthorn's great success.
The Hawthorn Football Club have a wonderful partnership in Tasmania, where they go out and about visiting communities and schools and contributing to the efforts of local charities, community groups and sporting clubs in Tasmania. Recent studies have valued Hawthorn's economic impact in Tasmania, and the brand exposure for Tasmania of Hawthorn's success, at around $29.5 million in 2014. So the Hawks' success is also benefiting the Tasmanian economy. I hope that over the next few years the Hawthorn Football Club continue their success. I particularly look forward to 2016, when, hopefully, we can be only the second team to ever get four in a row.
I take this opportunity to praise the work of the Women's Friendship Group in Manningham. The Women's Friendship Group is a non-denominational, non-political, multicultural group. The women who comprise this community organisation come from 33 different ethnic backgrounds. Founded in 1996, as the name implies it is about building friendships between people of different backgrounds and different interests. There are a number of activities which are conducted by the Women's Friendship Group—social activities, strength exercise activities and craft activities.
Most importantly, they run two social justice programs. The first is a domestic program in which they make garments for a variety of health institutions—some 2,000 in recent years. The second program is an international program where they support the village of Kanthi in eastern Kenya. They have connected water, built a water kiosk and a greenhouse, opened a kindergarten and are about to open a medical centre in this village of Kanthi in eastern Kenya. I congratulate the group. I particularly congratulate and commend Helen Jurcevic, who was recently awarded the Order of Australia Medal for her work. This is a great example of community activity in practice.
We have received some great news in Bendigo. It is great to be able to stand here and say that this government has finally signed the Hawkei contract, which will lock in hundreds of defence manufacturing jobs in my electorate of Bendigo. The Bendigo Thales facility which designed the Hawkei and produced the prototype under the former Labor government has now secured the contract to manufacture the Hawkei. This credit needs to go to, first, the workers at Bendigo Thales. We need to acknowledge the work of the AMWU, the AWU and the ETU and the workforce at Bendigo Thales for helping to build this great vehicle.
We also need to acknowledge the Department of Defence and the work that they did to ensure, regardless of who was the defence minister or who was the Prime Minister, that this contract would be signed and to lock in these jobs. I note the former Minister for Defence is in the chamber and I thank him for his support to lock in the Hawkei contract so that people of Bendigo could continue to produce the Hawkei locally. I do have a question, though, for the former minister. Would he have made the announcement in Bendigo or in the electorate next door at Monegeetta, where they have preselected a Liberal candidate? It strikes me as very odd that rather than standing with the workers and the manufacturer in Bendigo, the Prime Minister went to the neighbouring electorate. (Time expired)
I rise today to talk about some wonderful work that is being done in my electorate in October for Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Tomorrow is the Women's Network Northern Territory annual Pink Breakfast. It is an event that is held annually and it is very important for not only the awareness of breast cancer but also getting the women together. But, sadly, I am going to be here, so I will not be able to attend.
Unfortunately, one in eight women develop breast cancer in their lifetime. What is even more disturbing is that seven women die from breast cancer every day in Australia. So events like tomorrow's breakfast are really important for our community to make sure that women have access to information and also have access to each other. It is really important that people talk about the symptoms and signs of breast cancer because early detection is going to increase the survival rates.
I want to also put on the record the fantastic work that BreastScreenNT is doing across the Northern Territory. The people there are making real differences in our lives by making sure that the awareness and early detection of this hideous disease is made known across the territory. I am very pleased about it and, as I said, I want to put on the public record the fantastic work that BreastScreenNT does.
I rise to congratulate the mighty Macquarie Scorpions on the excellent season they had in the real NRL, the Newcastle Rugby League. They lost narrowly in the grand final to Lakes United by 24-18 after leading 18-4 at halftime. I pay tribute to the players who battled through injuries. They have a very young squad, which bodes well for next year. They did a great job getting to the grand final. They were massive underdogs, and to lead for 55 minutes was a tremendous achievement. I also know the eventually successful team, Lakes United, who played the full 80 minutes, and it was great to see the first Lake Macquarie-only grand final in the NRL since 1994.
More important than the work on the field is the work of the Macquarie Scorpions off the field. The team is full of white-ribbon ambassadors, and the leadership of the Macquarie Scorpions has instituted a Let's Tackle Domestic Violence round of the real NRL. They really are champions at confronting domestic violence in the Newcastle region and they are leading from the front. So I want to thank them for their great efforts in championing this very important cause as well as playing some great footy on the field.
I want to thank their major sponsors, Toronto Workers Club and Centennial Coal, a very important local employer. I want to wish them the very best of luck for next year. I am sure they will go well and, hopefully, the old saying that you have to lose one to win one comes true. I will finish by saying, 'Go, Scorps!'
Last night was huge. It was the third annual launch of the Shop Small campaign. Colleagues from right across the parliament came together to energise enterprise. The greatest renewable energy in our country is the optimism and positivity of enterprising men and women, and this campaign is about making sure all the terrific policy settings that we have put in place to give enterprising men and women every opportunity to succeed are backed by the consumer dollar. We know in this place there is no substitute for customers. You can have a great business plan and you can have great ambitions for the future, but without customers where is the viable business? Shop Small says to Australian consumers that if you value the men and women that make up the economic fabric of your community right across this vast continent, put some of your hard-earned behind those businesses. Give them the chance to delight customers, to innovate, to meet your needs, to recognise that strength in the small business community is vitality in the local economy.
American Express have got behind this campaign. They have been the founders. This year they are backed by Optus and Google, who are offering special deals for those that are participating. The major banks are involved. It is all about paying respect and giving support to enterprising men and women. So, as you are coming up to Christmas and you are thinking about something special to buy your sweetheart, why not shop small? Why not shop local? Why not get behind those enterprising men and women? The Shop Small campaign—get amongst it and give consumer support to the great policy settings this government is putting in place to support small business.
You would think the member for Dunkley was still the Minister for Small Business! But, of course, he is still a good advocate. Bring him back! But while there has been a significant reshuffle on the government benches, there has also been a reshuffle on the opposition benches. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate both the member for Oxley and Senator McLucas for the sterling efforts that they have put in, in terms of their shadow portfolio areas.
With their resignation from the frontbench we have had a significant new injection of talent on our side of the parliament. Two new women have been promoted to shadow cabinet: Senator Gallagher and the member for Greenway. They have excellent talent and are fierce fighters for their communities and they will be fierce in their portfolios. We have also had a number of other promotions, and I would like to congratulate all of them.
On the opposition benches we are fighting to ensure that our positive ideas are promoted in the community. We have a whole range of positive policies for the future. This is in stark contrast to the government that is flailing around with no new ideas, pursuing the old playbook of $100,000 degrees and all the other cuts to families. We will continue on this side of the House to pursue our positive policy with a new team. I would like to congratulate the opposition leader for his very good promotions. (Time expired)
General Sir John Monash is one of our greatest Australians. An engineer, lawyer, citizen soldier and talented pianist, he was born in 1865 to Jewish Prussian parents. He attended Scotch College and Melbourne University, where he first joined the militia.
Monash served at Gallipoli. In 1918 he was promoted to lieutenant general and given command of the Australian Corps. He was later promoted to general in 1929. His acclaimed success at the battle of Hamel on 4 July 1918 has been described as follows: 'A war-winning combination had been found: a corps commander of genius,'—Monash—'the Australian infantry, the Tank Corps, the Royal Artillery and the RAF.' Monash was knighted by King George V on 12 August 1918 following the battle of Amiens, the first commander to be knighted in the field for 200 years.
But many believe he has not received proper recognition. Among these is former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fisher AC. In his excellent book on Monash he makes a strong case to posthumously elevate General Monash to the rank of field marshal. This is supported in my electorate of Mackellar, where there is a large groundswell of support, with strong involvement from a former member of my staff, Mrs Robyn Young. There can be no more appropriate time for this to be done than in this year, the Centenary of Anzac. To achieve this recognition by Remembrance Day would be most fitting as I believe we are long overdue to hear the name 'Field Marshal John Monash'.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I wish to update the House on the investigation into the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. Last night the Dutch air safety board released its report into the shooting down of flight MH17. This was an investigation into the cause of the disaster but not to identify those responsible for it. The report is the result of many months of meticulous forensic work by the Dutch, who have worked closely with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. It confirms what Australia has maintained since the outset—that the flight MH17 passenger jet carrying 298 people, 38 of them Australian, was shot down by a Russian-made Buk surface-to-air missile system. The missile was fired from within a 320-square-kilometre area in eastern Ukraine, then occupied by Russian backed separatist forces. Other scenarios that could have caused the crash were carefully considered, analysed and excluded because of the available evidence.
I thank the investigators for their very detailed and tireless work in this investigation. I pay tribute to the highly professional work of all the Australian authorities, especially the Australian Federal Police. I want to express our thanks to the member for Warringah for his leadership, courage and compassion in the face of this tragedy. This report is an important step. It will provide answers to the families of the 38 Australian victims, with confirmation of the direct cause of the crash.
The destruction of MH17 and the murder of its passengers and crew was a shocking, shameful and cowardly crime. It was set against and part of the continuing geopolitical aftershocks of the collapse of the Soviet Union more than 25 years ago. But it was a deeply personal tragedy for the victims and their families. Thirty-eight Australians were killed, but 23 million Australians mourned, many because we knew the victims. In my own case, it was the Sacred Heart nun Sister Philomene Tiernan, whose earthly life, devoted to love and learning, was snuffed out by hatred and ignorance. All of us mourned because we know that there but for the grace of God go we or those we love.
Every new report bring some more closure to the bereaved, but it renews the grief as well. So today, once again, our prayers and love are with the families of all the victims of MH17. Our Australian family, like all families, prefers to come together in times of joy and celebration. In the days that followed the destruction of MH17, in the worst of times, we were united in compassion for the grieving and in our determination to see justice delivered to those responsible for this crime. As a government, we continue to do all we can to support the families, keep them informed and provide counselling and support.
This report from the Dutch air safety board will not provide all the answers to all of their questions. The demands of justice are yet unmet. Today I am writing to the bereaved families to assure them that they have the heartfelt sympathies of the nation as this process continues.
I thank the Dutch government. So many citizens of that country were killed in this crash. I spoke to their Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, last night. I thank the Dutch government for its efforts in providing the families with information on the investigation as it became available.
Those who committed this crime must answer for it. Led by our foreign minister, Australia sponsored UN Security Council resolution 2166 on 21 July 2014. It requires all nations to cooperate to identify those who sent MH17 to its destruction and hold them accountable. We deplore the conduct of Russia, using its Security Council veto in July to block the establishment of a special international criminal tribunal. However, the work of the joint investigation team, which has seen cooperation between Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine, will continue undaunted. We are focused on all possible options for prosecuting those responsible, with a view to securing due punishment for this crime.
I want to thank the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, for her tireless work in marshalling the support and cooperation from other countries to make this happen. As she has said, we will not be bullied by Russia. We and all the nations whose citizens share our grief are determined to do everything we can, no matter how long it takes, to identify those responsible and bring them to justice.
I rise to join in the response to the MH17 report provided by the Prime Minister. For the friends and families of the 38 victims who called Australia home and for people right around our world who lost someone they loved in the skies over Ukraine on that fateful morning in July, today is another step in the unfinished journey to justice. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to acknowledge the efforts of all those who contributed to this report. In particular, we thank the Dutch air safety board who led the work and all the Australian experts involved. Also, at this time, we think of Malaysia, in particular, which has suffered such tragedy in recent times.
This report tells us more of the mechanics of the MH17 tragedy—the how—not who perpetrated this atrocity or why. These questions deserve answers and the answers must lead to justice. But for those who mourn the loss of a loved one even this will not be enough. Grief is not, ultimately, about how someone is taken from you or even why, it is about who has gone and what you will miss—the unfinished conversations, the too-late statements of love, the unmade plans for shared adventures, the familiar places and the memories you made there together. This is the lonely road of mourning. For some, it means putting photos in a drawer, unable to look upon them until the scars heal. For others, it means putting up more photos than ever before.
All of us as we grow older have experienced the pain of mourning, the heavy weight of sadness and sorrow and loss, but none of us, in this place, can imagine the added burden the families of those aboard MH17 have had to bear. Their courage, their resilience, their patience and their remarkable ability to endure the harsh glare of the public spotlight on their unwanted private grief will be, again, unlocked today from the compartments of memory. I hope they can draw some modest consolation and affirmation from the knowledge that they are not alone. The hearts of all Australians are with them.
Prime Minister, just as I have worked with the member for Warringah on this, and I acknowledge his unflinching efforts, Labor supports every effort here and abroad to bring the perpetrators of this incomprehensible crime to account. We urge the parties involved in the crisis in Ukraine to fully commit to ending the violence in Ukraine. No more lives should be lost over matters that can and should be resolved around a conference table. Today we honour the loss and we stand with their loved ones, now and always.
Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Trade and Investment will be absent from question time for the remainder of this week. He is in Hong Kong promoting investment in Australia's tourism and hospitality sectors. The Minister for the Environment will answer questions on trade matters on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would be aware that the total cost of superannuation tax concessions is forecast to outstrip the cost of the age pension within four years. Therefore, can the Prime Minister please explain the logic of the Liberal government cutting part-pensions instead of reducing superannuation concessions for high-income earners who already have millions of dollars in superannuation?
The Leader of the Opposition seems to have given up on his scare campaign on penalty rates and now seems to want to launch a new assault on superannuation. The fact is, as the honourable member knows, that Australia's superannuation system is a critical part of the savings plans, the retirement plans, the financial security, of millions of Australians. His desire to assault it, his desire to undermine it, is really no more than—yet again—the Labor Party playing the politics of envy. Really? I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he should be better than that.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on why Australia is strongly positioned to take advantage of emerging opportunities in the global economy?
I thank the honourable member for Canning for his question and congratulate him, again, on his joining our ranks and on his first question in the House.
There is no nation in the world better positioned than ours to take advantage of the great opportunities emerging in the global economy. This is truly the most exciting time to be an Australian. Our nation has never had before it so many opportunities as it does today.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will cease interjecting.
We are here, in the Asia-Pacific, in a region of unprecedented growth, where countries that had barely participated in the global economy a generation ago are now playing an enormous part. China, 40 years ago barely part of the global economy, is now the single largest nation economy in the world. And we have, through the efforts of the trade minister, been able to open up further to Australian enterprise and business and imagination and innovation one big market after another—Korea, Japan, China and now the 12 nations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Ours is a government that is widening the horizon for Australian innovation. Above all, what we have is a confident nation. This is a time not for complacency, not for arrogance, but for pride in Australia and confidence in our people. We believe in the capability. We believe in the imagination. We believe in the enterprise of Australians. We do not seek to frighten them out of prosperity as the Labor Party does. And we are seeing confidence is recovering in this country. The National Australia Bank survey: confidence recovered in September. The highest turnaround in sentiment since 2001.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is warned!
The ANZ consumer confidence survey: up strongly; just now, at its highest since early 2014. There are similar results from the Westpac-Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment survey. The Australian people recognise that confidence is key and they share the confidence of the government. They are not deterred by the fear campaign of the opposition. They know that they are up to the challenge. They know that they are able to seize the opportunities offered by these free trade agreements. They know that they can seize the future. They are not afraid of it. They know they can win, and we will win. We have the best positioned economy in the region. We have everything we need to win—and win well—in the Pacific century.
Before I call the member for McMahon, the member for Griffith might not have heard, but she was warned during that answer.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's statements yesterday in question time about the importance of reducing government spending. Is government spending this financial year expected to be higher or lower than the level of spending forecast for the same year at the time of the last election?
I thank the member for the question. Expenditure as a percentage of GDP in this year's budget is forecast to be at 25.9 per cent, which is higher than at the time of the last election. It is—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left will desist. The Treasurer will resume his seat.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting. The Treasurer is no more than about 20 seconds into his answer. The member for McMahon has asked a question. Members on my left will cease interjecting—there is a wall of noise. The Treasurer is entitled to answer the question.
Unlike those opposite, we have a plan to control expenditure over the budget and forward estimates, and I can report to the House that this year it is estimated to be 25.9 per cent; next year it will fall to 25.5 per cent and the year after that to 25.3 per cent. We have a plan to control expenditure over the budgets and forward estimates. Those opposite have $57 billion of outstanding commitments and calls on the government purse to restore expenditure that this government has been able to get under control. I find it somewhat passing strange that those opposite are raising the issue of expenditure in this place when they left this country in the mess that they did with their fiscal recklessness.
Just before the last election there was a PEFO—you will remember it, Mr Speaker—that contained many assumptions. One of those assumptions was that some thousands of people would continue to arrive by boat, yet they did not account for $1.2 billion worth of expenditure that was necessary to ensure that we could deal with the recklessness that those opposite left behind.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Members on my left! The member for Gorton will cease interjecting.
In addition to that it assumed there would be a carbon tax. It also assumed there would be a mining tax and, more than that, it assumed the mining tax would actually raise revenue. When we look at the record of those opposite, what we know is that we on this side are a government that wants to help people work, save and invest. On that side they want to spend, they want to tax and they want to borrow.
My question is also to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer advise the House how a more agile and innovative economy can support Australia's commercial arrangements with growing economies in our region? Treasurer, how does national competition reform further strengthen our economy?
I thank the member for Bass for his question, because he knows—as the Prime Minister has already said—that this is an exciting time to be an Australian because of the opportunities that we have before us. We know as a country that there are uncertainties and volatilities out there, but we have a confidence. The Australian people and Australian business are expressing that confidence, as the Prime Minister has said, in the opportunities that are before us. Australians are backing themselves—as the government is backing Australians—to be able to make the transitions that are necessary for us to get from where we are today to the prosperity that is in front of us.
But there are other things we have to do. We need to ensure that we have strong fundamentals in our economy that are directing us towards flexibility and agility. That, of course, means we need a tax system that can support Australians to do the things that they want to do in the economy. Equally, we need a competition policy that can help us to grow and prosper—and not just that, but a competition policy that is going to give Australians, right across the board, from infants all the way through to those who are aged, the sorts of choices that they want to have on offer here in our economy.
That is why on Friday of this week the Harper review will be on the agenda for the state treasurers' meeting—because the states and territories also want to engage in this process of growing our economy. Those opposite do not want to engage. They do not want to engage with the task of budget repair; they do not want to engage with the task of economic reform. They simply want to try and scare Australians out of prosperity. What we want to do is to get the focus on the Harper review on the big-ticket reforms that can be achieved at a state and territory level as well as at a Commonwealth level. The most exciting of those are in the area of health and social services. We know already that this is a $100 billion sector in the Australian economy; it employs more than 1.4 million Australians—that is up 500,000 in the last 10 years alone—and the opportunities for growth in health and social services in this country and through the free trade agreements that have been achieved by the Minister for Trade will ensure that this will be a growth engine for our economy.
We on this side of the House want to ensure that these opportunities are explored in concert with the states. The states want to see their economies grow. The Commonwealth government wants to see the national economy grow. But that means we need to work together to work through the reforms—whether it is in health and social services, which will give Australians more choice for the services that they want to see and that they want to support, or whether it is in the area of land use, planning and zoning and those sorts of issues, which the Minister for Cities knows all about. He knows that if you can unlock the productivity of cities you can grow your economy at a much greater rate. At the end of the day we want to see this economy grow because that is the way—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will cease interjecting.
you bring the budget back into balance, and that is the way you secure the jobs of the future.
My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday the Prime Minister said he would consider Labor's plan to make superannuation fair and sustainable. On 17 June the Treasurer said:
… there are other taxation arraignments that apply to superannuation already and we are not going to increase those taxes … We will not tax your super.
Does the Treasurer stand by his statement?
The superannuation policies that we have had in place now for more than 20 years, which were introduced originally by the former member for Blaxland, have been an important part of ensuring that Australians can plan for their future and ensure that they can support themselves in their retirement. The reason we have tax incentives for superannuation is that we want Australians, when they reach retirement age, to not be dependent on welfare and the pension. That is what we want them to aspire to, and we hope that is something that a vast majority of Australians will be able to achieve. It is important that we understand the purpose of superannuation and why the tax incentive is important. It is also important that if you are going to put in place tax incentives for people for superannuation—and we are encouraging Australians to invest in their superannuation—then they have to have some certainty about what is going to happen in 20 or 30 years time when they are in the retirement phase.
Those opposite will know that the Prime Minister has made it very clear that the government will be looking at issues in relation to superannuation, but what the Australian people can be confident about is the coalition's record when it comes to superannuation. We know that it is their money. We know that it has a purpose. We need to know and we do know that there needs to be stability in the superannuation system.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon will cease interjecting!
What the shadow Treasurer is putting forward is to increase the uncertainty around superannuation investments by focusing his greedy tax initiatives on the retirement phase. Those on this side have a very good record when it comes to understanding that when you have saved for your future, we do not come and raid it. Those opposite have a very different record.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. No government is so evil that it cannot see the virtue of children. Failure to report sexual abuse used to be a crime. Why are doctors prevented under the government's laws from exposing and reporting the sexual and mental abuse of children? Which one of the honourable members of your government would allow their children to suffer such mistreatment? Which one of us would allow our children or grandchildren to be treated as the government treats children in detention? Why is the government imprisoning and radicalising little children at taxpayers' expense?
I thank the honourable member for his question. It is very serious issue that he raises. He makes reference to a bill that was introduced in the past by this parliament in relation to protecting information that is, in particular, related to intelligence that we receive from our five eyes partners and others that is of a sensitive nature and may be accessed within our department. We have brought in an act that prohibits people from releasing that information—that is, information of a secret nature. That is the gist of the bill.
The assertion that the honourable member makes in relation to there being some provision within the act to stop doctors or others from reporting these incidents is completely false and incorrect. There is an obligation on people working—either those who are employed or contracted here within Australian detention centres or on Nauru—to report those incidents to the police, as they should. I have instructed my department to make sure that we can do all we can to provide a safe environment.
We have, of course, decreased the number of children in detention from 2,000 when Labor was in government down now to less than 100. In fact, the number today stands at 97. Of the 97, 80 of those children are due to go back to Nauru at some point. They have come down because their parents, or the children themselves, have needed medical assistance, and they will return to Nauru. So that leaves 17 children in detention here in Australia—those that have come here by boat. We are working with those parents and with the agencies, including a ASIO, to determine how we might how we might get those children out. It is difficult in a number of circumstances because there may be an adverse ASIO assessment against the father, for example, and I have made it very clear that that father will not be released into the community whilst that person poses a national security risk to our country. I think all members in this place would support that stance. In those instances, I have said to the mother, for example, that we will allow her release with the children into the community because we do not have a security concern in relation to them. In some circumstances those parents have taken the decision that the mother and children can be released, and in some circumstances they have decided to remain in detention with the father. We will work through each of those cases.
When John Howard left office in 2007 there were no children in detention. As I say, the number peaked at 2000. It is now down to 97. I want to work that number down to zero, but we have to provide a compassionate system to provide support and we will do that. The most important aspect is to make sure that we do not allow the boats to restart, because I do not want detention centres to reopen as they did during Labor's time in government.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Mr Don Nardella MP, Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, and the Hon. David Hodgett MP, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and member for Croydon in the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you both.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on his recent visit to Indonesia and the importance of this bilateral relationship in creating jobs and growth.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley will cease interjecting!
I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member, with a degree in economics and I think 10 years experience with Colonial, has a real understanding of the economics of our region, and a real desire to make sure that we are part of a region that gives us the best chance of a better return through the farm gate in Australia.
That can be seen with the Casino meatworks in his region which employs 1,400 people and exports around 70 per cent of its product. It is on that basis that it is incredibly important for us to go to our region and make sure that we have strong ties with the respective ministers and with the key people in business so that we can be a greater benefactor of that expanding growth. For that purpose, it was great to meet up with Minister Thomas Lembong from the Ministry of Trade, who has worked in the past with the good Prime Minister. He reminded me of that and said that the Prime Minister was in the higher echelons and incredibly capable—so praise for him comes from far and wide.
Amran Sulaiman, the Minister of Agriculture, was one of the first ministers we were to meet. I thank him for that. I thank Minister Susi Pudjiastuti, who has shown us not only how you stop the boats but how you can burn them to the ground when they turn up—the fishing boats. She was obviously a person who strongly believes in border security in her own way—with Edhy Prabowo and Franky Sibarani, who is the head of Investment for BKPM.
It is incredibly important that we understand that when we are dealing with Indonesia—a country of 250 million people, a country that is growing at 5.2 per cent, a country where it is incredibly important for them to have that food security—we have a symbiotic relationship. We have the capacity to produce the product, and they now have the capacity more and more to pay for the product.
Opposition members interjecting—
This is something I thought the members opposite would be interested in. We exported in 2014 over $1¼ billion worth of wheat, $548 million worth of live cattle and over half a billion dollars worth of sugar. If you look at beef alone, Indonesians consume around two kilograms of beef per person per year. Malaysians, their neighbours, consume up to seven kilograms of beef per person per year.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is warned.
Australia is around 28 kilograms of beef per person per year. There is a huge upside in this market, and Australia will maintain the process, under good governance, of making sure that we have the vision to get a better return through the farm gate, the plan to deliver it, and the acumen and the expert skills that reside on this side of the House to actually deliver on it.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said he would consider Labor's plan to make superannuation fair and sustainable. In the same constructive vein, will the Prime Minister consider Labor's plan to make multinational corporations pay their fair share of taxation in Australia, a plan that will improve the budget bottom line by at least $7 billion over the next decade?
Government members interjecting—
I have not called the Treasurer. Members on my right will cease interjecting. It was difficult to hear that question. The Treasurer.
I thank the Prime Minister. I note the plan of those opposite and I note the fact that they believe that they will raise, I think, some $1.6 billion or thereabouts in revenue from that particular initiative relating to the thin capitalisation rates. But what those opposite do not understand—or maybe they do and they have just decided to ignore it—is that the type of model that they have put forward is out of step with the OECD rules that were brought down just within the last week, and I will tell you why: because what this does not do is focus on the bespoke nature of the investments and the legitimate nature of the company operations here in Australia.
What those opposite want to do when it comes to multinational taxation arrangements is take a blunt instrument to a very sensitive area, and what they particularly do not understand is that if you use the ratios that they want to apply to these issues then they will be putting at risk serious infrastructure investment in this country, because you will be applying a higher interest cost than you otherwise would. So those opposite want to put at risk the pension fund investments of other countries, who want to invest in an infrastructure in this country, because they want to use a blunt instrument to just grab revenue.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
But what they do not understand is what the impact of that might be on what the operations of these companies are. The advice that the government has is that the proposals put forward by those opposite will cost investment and they will cost jobs. The approach that the government has taken on this issue is entirely consistent with the OECD approach, and in fact in many ways—and I pay tribute to the member for North Sydney—it is ahead of the curve when it comes to dealing with multinational taxation arrangements, and it will raise real revenue. The measures that were introduced to this parliament by the member for North Sydney—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith has already been warned. That is her final warning.
have already seen the Australian Taxation Office increase the number of firms that it is working with from 30 to 80. So what you have on this side of the House when it comes to multinational taxation is actually a plan that will work and a plan that will launch.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
The member for Fraser is warned.
What we have from those opposite from their time in government was an absolutely relentless ability to fail to launch on pretty much every issue. They would have ideas. We remember the pink batts, we remember the school halls, we remember the border protection failures and we remember that they always would just fail to launch. In fact, with Labor governments, you are much better off if they just do nothing, because it is when they actually do something that the damage is really done, because they cannot respect the principle of 'do no harm'. The measures they are putting forward in this area, which they refuse to provide the assumptions behind despite our request to do that, run the very real risk of putting in jeopardy investment in serious infrastructure projects in this country, because they are trying to use a blunt instrument with the global ratio rule, which does not provide the level of customisation that you need to look at in individual circumstances. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Small Business and the Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister outline what action the government is taking to preserve the integrity of the taxation system and confidence in the Australian economy?
I would like to thank the member for Corangamite for that very important question, and can I say the people of Corangamite have made a very excellent choice in their advocate in this place. Serious financial crime has the potential to undermine the Australian economy. Its estimated cost to the Australian taxpayer is around $15 billion every year. That is why today, in this place, the Minister for Justice and I were able to launch the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce. This Serious Financial Crime Taskforce is made up of eight agencies, led in many respects by the Australian Taxation Office, which received in the last budget $127 million to undertake those activities and to ensure that they have the financial capacity and the powers that they need to do the job. The job that they need to do is to make sure that they can catch those people who are engaged in international tax evasion, fraudulent phoenix activity and also the abuse of trusts, to name just some of those activities. It builds off the success of Project Wickenby, which was a successful taskforce that convicted 46 individuals of serious financial crime and recovered almost $1 billon in revenue. The Serious Financial Crime Taskforce is already acting. From 1 July this year, the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce has eight investigations on foot and it ranges across 10 international jurisdictions.
The Australian Taxation Office has already instigated over 580 audits and has raised $85 million in liabilities since 1 July this year. So we are not waiting. We are closing the net on those people who are looking to seriously attack the integrity of our tax system and we will bring those people to justice who ought to be brought to justice. It is incredibly important to know that, when we bring them to justice, penalties are very severe: up to 25 years imprisonment for those people who are engaged in money-laundering and up to 10 years for each offence for those people who are engaged in fraud under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. There are very significant civil penalties as well, where people have to pay up to 90 per cent of the tax avoided, plus statutory interest. We are serious about financial crime and we hope that those opposite will join us in that fight.
Before I call the member for McMahon, I would like to inform the House that we have with us in the gallery today a delegation from the United States of America who are here as part of the Australian Political Exchange Program. On behalf the half of the House, we extend a warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, coalition senators on the Senate Economics Legislation Committee delivered a report backing the Prime Minister's legislation which ensures that tax paid by private corporations with turnover of over $100 million a year will be kept secret. Given that, according to the tax office, one in five of these companies paid no tax last year, is the Prime Minister concerned about this lack of transparency? Will his government act?
The government has acted and the arrangements that we have set out, the arrangements to get the balance right between disclosure and privacy, are absolutely correct. They have widespread support. Once again, the Labor Party is endeavouring to run a new campaign on the politics of envy and is trying to whip up a class war. The reality is we have a good tax system in Australia. Every Treasurer, including—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is warned again. That will be his final warning.
the current Treasurer, has been committed to ensuring that tax is paid and that everybody plays their part, and we are doing so. The work on base erosion and profit shifting that was just described a moment ago by the Treasurer is ongoing. The integrity of the tax system is absolutely vital. It will be maintained by my government, just as it has been maintained by governments in the past.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. Will the minister please advise the House on the opportunities and benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement for Australian science and research industries?
I thank the member for Petrie for his question. He knows that free trade in general and the Trans-Pacific Partnership in particular are very good news for Australian exporters, researchers, scientists, innovators, creating an environment for them in 12 countries—especially some of the new countries with whom we did not have bilateral free trade agreements—where they will be able to thrive, sell their products and services, grow their markets and protect their innovation. One of the important things about a researcher or a scientist is the capacity to protect their intellectual property. Their intellectual property, in many respects, is their currency, because it means their ideas cannot be stolen.
As part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations that the Minister for Trade and Investment settled, they agreed to have a common set of rules for intellectual property across the entire Trans-Pacific Partnership member countries. That means that there will be lower costs for business, because they will not have to comply with different intellectual property rules in each of those markets, and it means that they can protect their intellectual property and enforce penalties when someone is found to be in breach of intellectual property much more easily in all of those jurisdictions. This gives great comfort to individual researchers, to scientists, to innovative businesses—businesses like Textor Technologies in the member for Calwell's electorate. Textor Technologies teamed up with the CSIRO to produce a highly absorbent material that is used in 100 million square metres of fabric every year—it is used in nappies, in fact. It is produced by Kimberly-Clark in places like Sydney and the United States and Russia. It is an innovative technology created here in Australia in the member for Calwell's electorate, and she is not paying attention. That is probably how she treats her own electorate as well.
The minister will stick to the answer.
A business like Textor Technologies will take full advantage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Businesses like Atomo Diagnostics—which the member for Grayndler has probably not heard of, but they exist in his electorate—produce a simple blood test that replaces costly and time-consuming blood testing procedures with one easy-to-use device. Atamo Diagnostics plan to expand that business into the United States. They will now be able to do so knowing that in the United States and all the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries, their intellectual property will be protected, giving them comfort, reducing their costs—savings that can be reinvested in the business or be taken as profits to then be reinvested in the business—creating jobs and creating growth in the economy. This is the future for Australia: to build on mining, to build on agriculture, to build on everything else, but also to use innovation to become a First World modern economy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday coalition senators in the Senate Economics Legislation Committee backed tax secrecy because, as they state, 'the Australian public has a poor understanding of corporate tax'. Does the Prime Minister agree with his senators that Australians are mugs who do not understand the tax affairs of wealthy companies? How smart do Australians need to be to understand that one in five of these companies pays no tax? Will the Prime Minister dump this policy of secrecy?
I thank the member for the question and I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a).
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
Those opposite seem to want to give large public companies a leg up, because the measure as it is being put forward, and sponsored and promoted by those opposite, will allow large public companies to be able to scrutinise the financial matters of these private companies and be able to reverse engineer the negotiating position that they would be able to walk into a negotiating room with and deal with those large companies. So I do not understand why the member would want to give Coles, Woolies, BHP or any of these other companies the opportunity to give them a leg up in a negotiating position.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Fraser.
They either want to back big business in that way—to be able to put one over on smaller business when they are negotiating these things—or, the alternative is that they just do not have a clue.
My question is to the
Thank you very much Member for Mackellar for your question. You are the member for a great electorate. There is a company in the member's electorate I want to talk about in just a second. In relation to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement I want all Australians, particularly those working in small business, to know that this is a great opportunity for you and it is a great opportunity for your children and grandchildren.
It is important to understand that the TPP comprises almost 40 per cent of the world's GDP. The 12 countries that negotiated the TPP process and outcome, including Australia—and I congratulate the Minister for Trade and Investment—really have created a great opportunity into the future for their respective countries. There will be an opportunity for Australians here to travel overseas. The young Australians graduating from universities or from the trades will be able to work in countries in a way that they have not been able to in the past. That is going to be a significant win for this economy and it is going to be great for Australian families.
I want to concentrate on a company that started as a small business, Blackmores, which is in the electorate of the member for Mackellar. The CEO of Blackmores, Christine Holgate, a dynamic person and a good friend to many people in this place, spoke about the benefits of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. She spoke about its benefits to the company and about being able to increase the number of staff here in Australia by 100. Another 100 people will be employed just because of that one free trade agreement, which would increase the number of staff in the business to just under 1,000.
The experience with the TPP will mean that companies like Blackmores can employ more Australians and many of those Australians will find work not just here but by being able to travel overseas, on visas, to countries including Canada and elsewhere, to make sure that they can gain the experience there or be involved in those businesses that have now been able to expand into other countries. That is a great outcome for our economy.
Opposition members interjecting—
The reason that Labor does not get this—and I hear the member for Sydney interjecting—is that none of them come from a small business background.
Honourable members interjecting—
I do not know if it is inappropriate, Mr Speaker, but I might just ask colleagues on my side if they could perhaps put their hand up if they have been involved in a small business. I think it is pretty instructive. Now, excluding the union hacks over there, how many of you have been involved in small business? Hands up.
Honourable members interjecting—
One—just one—and your preselection is at threat. Watch out, Mr Danby, your preselection is at threat. You are not a trade-union favoured candidate and you could be targeted.
The minister will bring himself back to the question.
The point of this is that this is the reason that this side of the parliament gets small business— (Time expired)
Before I call the next member I would like to recognise former Speaker of the House Mr Harry Jenkins, who is with us today, in the northern gallery.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Are the Prime Minister's declarations in the Register of Members' Interests accurate?
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting.
A member has used unparliamentary language and he should withdraw.
It will not surprise the member for Griffith that with the level of interjections I could not hear the Minister for Justice, but if he made an unparliamentary remark I would like him to assist the House and withdraw.
I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
Following the unparliamentary remark of the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Cities and the Built Environment and the member for Mitchell also made unparliamentary remarks.
Again, if the Minister for Cities and the Built Environment made an unparliamentary remark I would ask him to assist the House and withdraw.
I withdraw.
And the member for Mitchell.
I am very happy to assist the shadow Treasurer and withdraw the remark.
I thank the honourable member for his question. I can assure him that I, like all other members, and indeed senators in the other place, take care to ensure that their declarations of interests in the Register of Members' Interests are accurate and up to date. But if the honourable member feels that there is an omission or an error I would be delighted if he draws it to my attention. I will certainly check it out and if there is one it will be corrected.
My question is to the
I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. The member will be well aware that this federal coalition government is making a record $50 billion investment in infrastructure across Australia. That means that there are key projects underway right now which otherwise would not have happened. I guess the member would be particularly interested in one of those significant projects, which is our commitment to upgrade the Bruce Highway, which connects his electorate to the north and to the south. It is one of the most dangerous roads in the country, and we have made a $6.7 billion commitment to reduce congestion, improve flood immunity and deliver safety benefits for both freight and communities. There are at least 60 projects on this program.
Honourable members interjecting—
The Minister for the Environment and the member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.
Just last week, the Leader of the Opposition announced his 10 projects that he was going to fund around the country. He mentioned the Bruce Highway, but what he must have forgotten was that, when they were in government, they actually tried to slow down the progress of upgrading the Bruce Highway. They demanded that the states, instead of paying 20 per cent of the cost, would have to pay 50 per cent of the cost. As a result, projects simply would not have happened. And, at the last election, their commitment to the Bruce Highway was $2 billion less than what the coalition had promised.
So here is, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition saying he is going to speed it up; but, when they were in government, they slowed it down. There are at least 30 projects on our list to build and to undertake on the Bruce Highway that were not on the opposition's list, and they clearly are not there now, because they did not provide the funds that are necessary to deliver them.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.
Indeed, we have just called the tenders for Cooroy to Curra stage C, and Labor had provided no money for that project in their 10-year plan.
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Grayndler and the Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
When you look around at the Leader of the Opposition's 10 projects that were on the list, it just draws to attention the projects that are not on the list. For instance, the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, the biggest project in regional Australia, is not on Labor's list—it is just not there. The north-south corridor in Adelaide, South Australia's biggest ever project, is not on the list. And what about the WestConnex and NorthConnex projects, let alone the Perth Freight Link? None of those are on Labor's list. What about the inland rail? The Melbourne to Brisbane railway line is not on Labor's list.
The clear reality is that, if the Labor were ever elected to office, projects would be stopped right across the country—because they are not about building infrastructure; they are about stopping infrastructure. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Jordan, has described the Cayman Islands as a tax haven. Is this the government's position?
I would say to the honourable member that, as he well knows, there are many countries that are in jurisdictions that can operate as tax havens, including countries in our region. As far as the Cayman Islands is concerned, to save the honourable member time, and for the build-up of this, I just want to make this very clear. When I became a minister, all of my investments were approved under the Ministerial Code of Conduct by the secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet. In order to avoid conflicts of interest, almost all of my and my wife's investments—and they are all disclosed—are in overseas managed funds, which means that I and Lucy have no say in which single-name companies those managed funds invest in.
Thousands of managed funds, well over 10,000 or 12,000, with investors outside of the United States are registered in the Cayman Islands, with the result that the income of the fund is taxed in the hands of the investors in their own home jurisdictions. So the fact is that all of my or Lucy's income from investments, including funds which are registered in the Cayman Islands, is taxed in full in Australia.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right! The minister for immigration! The member for Aston!
My question is to the Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects, representing the Minister for Communications. Will the minister please outline how the launch of the first long-term satellite, Sky Muster, will benefit regional and rural Australians in country electorates such as mine of O'Connor?
I thank the member for O'Connor for this very important question. He is a—
Before I call him, I remind the member for Grayndler of my previous rulings on frivolous points of order. This cannot be on relevance given the minister had not opened his mouth.
It is on the question.
Yes?
It is on the question. In order to—
The member for Grayndler has not got the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker—
I said the member for Grayndler has not got the call. I am not going to be interrupted. The member for Grayndler on a point of order, and he can state the point of order.
Yes, it goes to the question, Mr Speaker. In order to be in order, the question needed to point out that it was funded by this side and opposed by him.
The member for Grayndler is warned.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. I cannot hear the minister.
I thank the member for O'Connor for this very important question. He is an extremely strong advocate for the needs of his constituents when it comes to communications in remote areas. He has a huge electorate, which covers very long distances, as I saw on my visit to his electorate on 20 May, when we went from Albany through to Cranbrook, to Williams and to Perth. That was a good insight into the scale of his electorate, and, of course, many electorates represented by members on this side of the House will benefit very markedly from the long-term satellite service.
As the member correctly states in his question, on 1 October the first NBN satellite successfully launched from the Arianespace facility in French Guiana, heading for geostationary orbit at 36,000 kilometres. This is an enormously important step. Satellite is a key technology for serving regional and remote Australia, and there has never been any political contention on that. All the technical advice has been consistent on that point. But what we saw from the other side of the House was a comprehensive mismanagement of the interim satellite service, leading to enormous frustration in regional and remote Australia. The previous government claimed that its interim satellite service could serve 250,000 premises. In fact, it only purchased enough transponder capacity to serve 48,000 premises. And the previous government failed to ensure that NBN had the technical and contractual tools required to manage the amount of data which retail service providers promised to supply end customers.
The long-term satellite service, by contrast, has been well managed by NBN, and we see that higher speeds than the interim satellite service will be available once commercial service commences—25 megabits per second peak speed down, five megabits per second peak speed up, markedly higher download capacity and 101 spot beams covering all of Australia—plus, I am pleased to note as minister for territories, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Cocos Island.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is now warned.
Four hundred and twelve thousand premises will be covered. It has been a daunting technical task to get this satellite launched. Pleasingly, it is now in its geostationary orbit. There are a series of tests that now need to be carried out. Commercial service is expected by mid-2016, and at that point Australians will be able place orders for a service delivered over the long-term satellite service. This is a game changer for satellite broadband services in remote and regional Australia, and the Turnbull government is again delivering where Labor conspicuously failed to.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer where he referred to actions that he took when he became a minister. Given the Prime Minister's register of interests shows new investments in the Cayman Islands were being declared on 18 June 2014, 19 January 2015 and 16 June 2015, can the Prime Minister confirm his Cayman Island investments were made after the tax commissioner had described it as a tax haven? Can the Prime Minister also confirm the income from those investments is higher because they are located in the Cayman Islands?
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
The member for Bass will cease interjecting.
Mr McCormack interjecting—
The member for Riverina will cease interjecting; he is denying the Prime Minister the call.
The honourable member's inability to understand the way in which thousands of managed funds with international investors—by which I mean investors outside of the United States—use the Cayman Islands is really quite remarkable. The fact is that the consequence of an Australian investing in a managed fund—and I think if honourable members opposite look at their superannuation funds they may find that many of them are invested in international managed funds which are domiciled in the Cayman Islands—is to ensure that all of the tax is paid in Australia. It actually increases the tax that is paid in Australia. The honourable member's inability to understand the way in which these funds operate is remarkable. The fact is that all of my and my wife's income from managed funds is taxed in Australia—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
and that all of that income is taxed here in full.
My question is to the Minister for Cities and the Built Environment. Will the minister inform the House how the Gold Coast light rail project will better connect cities in South-East Queensland? How will the government's commitment to evaluating all transport modes when funding infrastructure ensure our cities remain key economic and social assets?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler, I remind him, has already been warned.
I thank the member for the question and his commitment to his part of the world, along with the members for Moncrieff, Fadden and Macpherson, who argued so strongly for investment from the federal government in this project. It is an important project, and it is part of an approach the Prime Minister is leading on making Australian cities the best that they can be and to ensure that we have livable, accessible and productive cities to attract the world's best global talent. Clearly the investment on the Gold Coast light rail, the second stage of which will connect the first stage with the Brisbane rail connections, will make that protect itself work very well for the future of the Gold Coast and its growth, but also for the Commonwealth Games. Members on this side are, of course, very committed to ensuring that the Commonwealth Games are a success in 2018, with key infrastructure investments to ensure that they go off as well as we want them to in the international sphere.
This new portfolio is very much focused on the future. It is about jobs. It is about ensuring people in our cities have access to the best possible housing as close to the jobs as possible. We know that in recent decades jobs have centralised while our cities have expanded. That has made the challenge of living in our cities even harder than it once was, and getting access to good quality housing has been more challenging. So the Treasurer, the Minister for Social Services and I will be working very hard to find ways to make housing more accessible throughout our country, throughout our major cities, and we will be working on ways to fund and innovate, using our balance sheet, to deliver more mass transit projects. The minister for major projects and I focus very much on how we can get more private-sector capital invested into these major projects to ensure the future of our cities is sustainable and that they are livable, they are accessible and they are productive for Australia's future.
We know Australia is a very urbanised country—much more so than many of our competitors. Even though we are a wide brown land, we are locked up largely in our major cities. The large bulk of our GDP is derived from those cities, with 24 per cent of our GDP coming exclusively from Sydney, so we are focused on what we can do as a federal government to coordinate with state and local governments to complement their efforts and ensure that we have cities which work well for our future, which are creating jobs and providing the growth that we need for a stronger Australia. It is an exciting futurist portfolio that the Prime Minister is very focused on and that this government is focused on. It will be making the most of our investments; it will be ensuring we get the cities we need to attract the best global talent and make Australia stronger.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Zebedee Growth Fund, one of the Prime Minister's many Cayman Island investments declared on the register. The fund is headquartered at Ugland House, an address shared with 19,000 other companies, prompting US President Obama to say, in May 2009:
… either this is the largest building in the world or the largest tax scam in the world.
Does the Prime Minister have the same position as President Obama? Is he concerned by Australians not paying their fair share of tax by investing in the Cayman Islands?
I can explain it to the honourable member now for the third time. The purpose of a managed fund being domiciled in the Cayman Islands is to cater for international investors—non-US investors—so that the income from the fund accruing to each of the investors is taxed in their own jurisdiction. If an investor were located in a low-tax jurisdiction then they would pay a low rate of tax. For any investor in a fund like that, as indeed for any Australian in a fund like that, the consequence of that arrangement is that all of that income that accrues to my share of investment is brought to account fully and tax is paid on it fully in Australia. The fact is that all of that income, all of my share of the income, is fully taxed in Australia. That is the point. No Australian tax is avoided—Australian tax is paid in full.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the government's debit card trials, in particular the trial centred on the Ceduna community in my electorate of Grey?
I thank the member for Grey for his question. As he notes, this issue is of great importance to his electorate because the proposed trial site is to be centred on Ceduna. The member asked about the progress of the healthy welfare card, or the healthy debit card as it has become known. I will answer his question in two parts. First, I note the organisational processes that have brought us to this point—the point at which the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill is presently in the Senate. Second, I will look at the procedural projects that we have before the Senate in terms of that debit card trial bill. What has got us to this point of progress? It is the recognition of a huge problem—an entrenched problem, particularly in Indigenous communities—and of the intense need to do something and try a new approach, combined with the incredible efforts of the assistant minister, the federal member for Aston. The last two years of the federal member for Aston's life have been devoted to getting this bill into the Senate. Perhaps the starting point for that process was the Forrest review. The Forrest review said simply this: we needed to develop a healthy welfare card and to program the card to block the issue of cash and the purchase of alcohol.
The statistical evidence that something new needs to be done, that a new approach needs to be trialled, is absolutely overwhelming. There have been 3,000 deaths in Australia from alcohol related incidents and 65,000 hospitalisations each year. The Indigenous community suffers these problems particularly acutely. Those hospitalisation rates are four times greater for Indigenous communities. All of us here have witnessed these types of problems in various parts of Australia. As a crown prosecutor I saw them—I saw unfathomable misery caused by welfare payments being excessively used for the purchase of alcohol. The member for Aston, the assistant minister, has taken a simple recommendation and developed a very sophisticated system—a simple card, which you will all see soon, and an arrangement under which 80 per cent of an individual's welfare payments will be directed to that card. Cash withdrawals from that 80 per cent will be prohibited. The card will work anywhere, any time, for the purchase of anything except at liquor stores and gambling outlets.
The second part of the question asked where we are at. We have a bill before the Senate. A committee has essentially recommended the passage of the bill. In this parliament's wake we have decades of failure to address this problem. So we have something new before the Senate and an assistant minister who has given two years of his life to this issue—and we only have one group in this parliament immutably opposed, and that is the Australian Greens. The Ceduna community groups came here to talk to us but the Greens refused to meet with them—they absolutely refused to meet with them. They came here to tell us that they needed something new, and they were met with a refusal by the Greens to meet with them. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Services Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2014-15.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Greenway proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's cuts to innovation, science and research hampering Australia's economic growth and productivity and hurting Australia's small businesses.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I would otherwise be delighted to rise on this occasion for a discussion on the topic of small business as a driver of innovation and productivity in our economy, but unfortunately in the context of this MPI that is not the case. It is not the case in the context of the destructive policies of the Abbott-Turnbull government. This matter of public importance highlights the damaging cuts made to innovation programs, science and research, and the failure, when it comes this government, of getting these settings right for Australian small businesses.
The starting point is this: this government talks a big game when it comes to innovation and small business and investment in the sector—a big game with a lot of buzzwords; a big game with a lot of adjectives. But here is the rub: all that talk and enthusiasm will only get you so far, and, let's face it, the previous minister for small business cannot be matched by the current one when it comes to enthusiasm. You only had to see his impassioned 90 second statement on Shop Small, which I fully endorse, to understand his level of enthusiasm. It actually makes you wonder: 'Why did they get rid of him?' On that note, this side of the House would like to pay tribute to the former minister for small business and congratulate him on the enthusiasm that he brought to the portfolio. But on that note, it is tangible results that matter.
We can look at the track record of this government when it comes to the damaging impact on economic growth, on innovation and on productivity, hurting Australia's small businesses as a result of its short-sighted cuts over the past two years. It is a sad state of affairs. First you have the horror show of the 2014 budget, backed in unequivocally by the now Prime Minister. It will long be remembered for its unfairness and its damage to the Australian economy.
But let us not forget the truly backward decisions that were made when it comes to innovation and the impact this has had on our entrepreneurs and the impact it continues to have on the small business community. Let us look at some of the specific damage that was done: reductions in the value of the R&D Tax Incentive, estimated to be at around $1.7 billion in lost incentives for business to invest in R? abolition of Commercialisation Australia; abolition of the Innovation Investment Fund; abolition of Enterprise Connect; abolition of Industry Innovation Precincts—the word 'abolition' will appear a lot here; abolition of Enterprise Solutions and Researchers in Business; and replacing a number of these programs, including by the ill-conceived Entrepreneurs Infrastructure Program—now just the Entrepreneurs' Program—which tries to deliver similar programs to Enterprise Connect and Commercialisation Australia but with around half the funding. What short-sightedness. What lack of ambition for our entrepreneurs and our small businesses in Australia from this government.
Those opposite will have you believe that they are delivering on an action plan on these very issues, and it gives me an opportunity to note a significant anniversary. It is a significant anniversary today. I am sure everyone on the opposite side of the House is aware of it, because I would like to say, 'Happy first birthday to the Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda.' Who even knew it existed? What has been done? A year in, what has been done? Do you know the word that is used in here most of all? It is a series of 'ambitions'. Well, an ambition is a thought that you have when you are not prepared to back it up with commitments. That is the story of these governments. I would like to go through just a few here. We have, for example, the Entrepreneurs' Infrastructure Program which I just mentioned, an ill-conceived idea supposed to deliver outcomes similar to Enterprise Connect and Commercialisation Australia—both abolished—with about half the funding. We have the Industry Growth Centres, a scaled-down version of the 12 innovation precincts, now cut down to five, established under Labor in our own jobs package, but now, under this government, with about half the funding.
Just as an aside, because I just cannot resist: we have in here under the heading of 'Boosting parents' participation in the workforce'—this is a special:
Actions to come:
Not only did they ditch that one, they put $1 billion in cuts for paid parental leave on the table. But the reality is: it is hardly surprising that you do not hear small business or the relevant sectors talking up this series of ambitions—it is all ambition, no commitment.
I want to mention the important issue of commercialisation, widely recognised as the key area in which government has a role to play in helping small business to transition the good idea to the market. Australians and Australian small businesses are innovative and creative, but, when it comes to commercialisation, small business is badly let down by this government. In government, Labor was providing support through Commercialisation Australia, helping companies, entrepreneurs and inventors take up opportunities and create exciting new products and services. That was until this government, in an act of sheer economic vandalism, ripped $260 million from it in their budget.
You do not have to take it from me; have a look at this ABC news report from 2 September 2014, which focuses on a very important company, Global Kinetics, which had developed a wristband having an impact on those living with Parkinson's. The report begins by quoting Andrew Maxwell, the Chief Executive of Global Kinetics, saying:
"A small Australian company that took a research project through to now being a product being marketed in more than 12 countries around the world, I think that's a great measure of success …
The report goes on:
However, he says it might not have happened without $1.3 million in Federal Government funding from Commercialisation Australia.
This was under Labor. The report continues:
The grants program was scrapped it the latest budget, along with the Innovation Investment Fund, which co-invested in venture capital funds.
Mr Maxwell says it is disappointing.
"It gives a turbo boost—
I have heard that before—
if you like, to the amount of money that you've got in the business and it enables you to manage your programs and get into the market much quicker …
The report goes on to quote an expert here, Kevin Cullen, from the University of New South Wales's New South Innovations, who says the cuts by this government:
… seemed like a very strange thing to do, given that all of the other developed countries in the world are investing in innovation …
When we talk about innovation and when we talk about this so-called agenda, let us remember an area that was sadly missing from this government's document. This is something I wrote on a year ago, to the day—the absolute neglect of the role of ICT in all of this. As I wrote, the evidence consistently shows that the ICT sector is one of the biggest drivers of growth and innovation in an economy. It is considered to be a gateway growth sector, not only a growth sector in its own right but one which facilitates other, often entirely unrelated sectors to innovate and expand.
The other interesting thing that I liked in this Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda's set of ambitions is how they describe ICT. It is probably the only time ICT, or something close to it, is mentioned. It is in the context of the National Broadband Network. It says that they have:
Recalibrated the National Broadband Network to use the most cost effective technology to allow a faster and more affordable rollout.
Faster! It has doubled the cost. Where is this rollout under this Prime Minister?
What needs to be remembered is the importance that small businesses place on having accessible and affordable access to broadband. It needs to be remembered that something like two-thirds of small businesses are sole traders, many of whom work from home, as we on this side who work from home and rely on accessible and affordable broadband know. We now have the Prime Minister who promised—he went to the last election saying—we were going to get it faster, sooner and more affordably. Fail! Fail! Fail! Not only that, he promised to prioritise areas of need, including geographical areas, including small businesses, including those regions that were chronically underserved. Fail! Fail! Fail on every count!
What we have from this government is all talk when it comes to supporting innovation and small business. All the buzzwords that they like will not cover up having a government which has absolutely no commitment in ensuring the long-term future—not only the sustainability but the growth—of our small business sector. You do not have to take it from me. We know how important this is from speaking to our own constituents. If we want to harness the future prosperity of this nation, if we want our small business men and women—those innovators in our electorates—to be able to grow and thrive and have their businesses grow from small businesses to even larger ones, we need to ensure that they are supported by a government which does not just cut in the most short-sighted manner, which does not just take all the opportunities that Labor put forward, in terms of technology and being able to have the highest quality broadband, and lay that to waste. We have had exactly that under this government, and it is a disgrace.
It is very exciting to be able to rise in this chamber to have a debate, a contest of ideas, about how we can embrace innovation and entrepreneurship in Australia. But I am somewhat saddened. I am somewhat disappointed. I do not think that the shadow minister for small business has quite got the memo yet: politics is changing for the better in this country.
The Australian people, when they look at this chamber, want us to use this chamber as an opportunity to debate ideas, and I know that there are members and shadow ministers opposite who agree with me. They believe that we should use this chamber as an opportunity to debate and contest ideas about how we can make our country as good as it can be. The shadow minister has just had 10 minutes at the dispatch box. Colleagues, how many ideas were raised in the last 10 minutes? In her 10 minutes at the dispatch box, I do not think we saw a single idea raised in this chamber. The Australian people want to see this change.
Earlier in the year, the Leader of the Opposition made a very bold statement. He said that this would be the year of big ideas. I think the Australian people want to see that. I will give credit where it is due. The Leader of the Opposition wants to see big ideas debated in this chamber. All members should be using this chamber to debate those ideas. But if the only idea that the Labor Party is putting forward is adding more zeros to the government chequebook that is not good enough.
As a first principle, when we talk about our entrepreneurs, when we talk about our small business owners, I have to make a simple admission. I have never met one entrepreneur, I have never met one small business owner, who has said to me, 'If only the government became more involved in my business, if only the government became more involved in my enterprise, it would be more successful.' The first principle when it comes to supporting innovation and entrepreneurship should be: how can the government act as an enabler? How can the government get out of our entrepreneurs' way so that they can get on and do the great things that they are already achieving?
When we look around the world and look at where we are seeing successful innovation, where we are seeing enterprise supported, where we are seeing significant outcomes in research and science, wherever the government acts they act with the private sector in partnership. We should not have an approach where, simply, a cheque from Canberra is the solution to innovation and entrepreneurship. We should always be looking to partner with the private sector.
If we look to the United States, for example, a country that is achieving significant outcomes when it comes to the commercialisation of their ideas, they are achieving significant outcomes when it comes to innovation and entrepreneurship. The United States and our country, on a per capita basis, have about the same number of scientists and researchers. But when we compare those that work for the government with those that work for the private sector we actually see inverse proportions. So, even though we have about the same number of scientists and the same number of researchers in the United States as in our country, in the United States we see a far greater proportion working in the private sector. By partnering with government, by using government has an enabler, and not simply just expecting a big cheque from the government without any private sector involvement, the United States has been able to become a world-class leader in innovation, in science and in research.
One of the members opposite mentioned Israel earlier. If we look to Israel, in many ways it is the start-up nation. It is the world leader when it comes to innovation and entrepreneurship. On a per capita basis they have more entrepreneurs than any other country on earth—yet it is a country of only eight million people that has no natural resources. When you look at the NASDAQ, after the United States, Israel has more companies listed than any other country on earth and more than the next seven countries combined. Why are they having so much success? It is not because of big cheques from government. It is because the government has got out of the way of the entrepreneurs. It is because the government has partnered with the private sector. In Israel—and the shadow minister is leaving the chamber, but this is a very important point to realise—we are actually seeing declining investment from the government but overall increasing investment because you have private sector engagement when it comes to partnering with the government to achieve these innovation and entrepreneurial outcomes for that country. Surely if in the country that is having the greatest success when it comes to supporting innovators and entrepreneurs they are realising that the government's role is not to get in the way, dictate or pick winners but to act as an enabler then that is something we can achieve.
This is the debate and contest of ideas we should see across this table. I know members on both sides of this chamber want to see a greater embrace of innovation and entrepreneurship. But in order for us to have that discussion members opposite have to actually put some ideas on the table. I challenge the members opposite—there are more speakers on this MPI—to provide some ideas in this discussion.
The reality is the government is spending a great deal when it comes to innovation, entrepreneurship, science and research. We are already investing $9.7 billion in this year alone in science, research and innovation. That puts us above the OECD average. Surely, if we are spending above average OECD figures when it comes to innovation and entrepreneurship, the question has to be asked: why is it that we are not seeing the gains that we need to see when it comes to leading the globe in the commercialisation of our great ideas? This country has an amazing record of fantastic research and great ideas. We are not achieving a global standard to the level that we should when it comes to the commercialisation of those ideas and turning those ideas into the enterprises, businesses and services to change the world for the better.
If the only policy solution that the Labor Party has is to add more zeros to the government chequebook, I do not think that is going to achieve the outcomes that we need to see. The figures speak for themselves. We are not achieving what we need to see, despite spending $9.7 billion in this year alone. The reality that this is where we can have this contest of ideas, this competitive tension when it comes to policy creation, is the main reason we should be having this debate today. If we want to be a more prosperous nation, if we want to be a nation that will continue to see rising living standards, it is incredibly important that we do not allow fear to define our response to a changing world. The shadow minister spent 10 minutes using fear as her political weapon. The Australian people want to see something more than that. If we are going to embrace innovation and entrepreneurship, we need to see a change in culture. We need to embrace entrepreneurial spirit in our collective psyche. Government has a role to play in that. The business sector has a role to play in that. These are the sorts of ideas that we should be embracing.
If we look at our start-up community in this country we will see that start-ups are not crying out for just more money from government. They want to see private sector involvement. Last year Australians spent about $200 million on the Melbourne Cup. We in this country are not afraid of having a punt. We spent $200 million on the Melbourne Cup. But we only invested, through venture capital, about $100 million on our start-ups. If you go out into the start-up community you will find that they are desperate to see a greater investment of capital into their start-ups. What is the government's role? It is not just to add some more zeros to chequebook. The government's role is to create the framework and set the taxation settings that will encourage that investment in our great entrepreneurs. Obviously, if they are involved with the private sector and are finding customers in a growing global marketplace, that is where they are going to achieve the success they so desperately need.
We also—and I think we could have some agreement across the table on this—need to grow our talent pool. We are incredibly lucky that we have so many bright, talented and, I might say, occasionally young people in this country who are prepared to go out there and have a go. They are prepared to develop the skill sets that are needed in STEM and the digital and tech skill sets that we need. We need to be doing everything in our power to grow that talent pool in our country.
The other thing—and we should not be afraid of this—is that we should be a magnet for the best and brightest people across the globe. It is not just how much money the government spends that will attract people. A harsh reality here is that we do not have as much money to spend as many other countries when it comes to attracting the best and brightest, but we have natural advantages, such as our lifestyle. If we get our taxation settings and employment settings right, we can attract the best and brightest people from across the globe.
Finally, we need to see greater cooperation between the government, higher education, science, research and particularly the private sector, because that is where we will see global success. That is how we will achieve greater innovation and entrepreneurship in Australia. (Time expired)
Last night I had the pleasure to attend the Sydney university INCUBATE Demo Day, which had eight young enterprising start-ups pitch their ideas for investment to try to attract investment support for their planned businesses. INCUBATE has had a great track record of success. It was actually initially supported by the student union at Sydney university because Sydney university did not want to support INCUBATE. It is supporting it now. It is being run by James Alexander and a great bunch of people.
Last night at their Demo Day one of the youngest start-ups was recognised by Lenovo. It won the entrepreneurs award. This start-up was set up by two people who met in high school. They started university this year. They put together their company, Fluid Education, and they started an app. They have 1,000 users already. There would be some people in this place who would have enough trouble getting 1,000 Twitter followers, and these people have users already. These young people have already demonstrated their capability to start up a business.
These are the type of people who are at the forefront of our thinking on the Labor side. I am happy to say to the start-ups and the entrepreneurs in this country that are trying to change the way our economy works, trying to create new jobs and build better communities that they have a voice in Labor. They have our attention. This is the first time a ministerial or shadow ministerial position has recognised start-ups in the line-up. Start-ups have been recognised for the first time. Small business is important to recognise, but it is also important to recognise start-ups. It is not just in name; it is in action. It is not just about talking the talk; it is about walking the walk.
If the assistant minister wants ideas, we have released two waves of policies already. The budget reply speech was warmly received by the start-up community because it focused on the fact that we need to build the talent pool in this country.
The way to do it is to do it early: to get young people focused on computational thinking and on coding, and get that into primary schools—derided, I might add, by the former Prime Minister, who had to backtrack because wiser heads on that side of the fence recognised that this was not a smart policy and that we do need to get younger people focused on coding.
We have announced support for STEM and getting more people into science, technology, engineering and mathematics training. We announced, for example, the creation of a start-up year that would ensure not just that we would attack the low level of start-up formation in this country but also that we would break down the culture that works against people thinking they can start their own enterprise. More important than anything else is the start-up year creating 2,000 new start-ups.
It is also in dealing with, for example, capital flows. We have announced that our policy would be to create an innovation-investment partnership, which would bring together superannuation funds and the VC sector to work out how to pull down the barriers that exist in one of the biggest savings pools on the planet—$2 trillion in superannuation. How do we get them to invest more in early-stage investment, right here? If you want ideas, we have them and more, assistant minister. We will be bringing more.
Mr Pitt interjecting—
I might ask the member for Hinkler: what is your record on innovation? As much as you call us for ideas, let us look at what you have done. Just on innovation: reductions in the value of R? abolish Commercialisation Australia. The assistant minister has become great friends with Doron Ben-Meir but his government rid him of Commercialisation Australia. He is now in MAP at the University of Melbourne after having seen all the funds cut out of Commercialisation Australia and being gutted. They abolished Enterprise Connect. They cut $45 million from clean technology programs and abolished industry-innovation precincts.
You want ideas? Here is an idea: don't keep cutting innovation if you want the country to be more innovative. You cannot have a policy hackathon, assistant minister, if you are going to say at the table that we are not about spending money. The people who are attending will want to know what support they will get for ideas.
More money!
You are right, assistant minister, because you and I do have these conversations. Start-ups want government to do the things they do well: support education, improve capital flows, reduce regulatory barriers and make sure we are an innovative nation. (Time expired)
I am filled with optimism for the future, particularly in science. There is no way that my enthusiasm is going to be dragged down by negativity from anywhere. We are in the best possible place we can be, in this nation, and we need to get behind and support our fabulous researchers and scientists as they go out there and do world firsts in their research. I am here to tell a very positive story about what this government is doing and what I know it will do in the future to support scientists and researchers.
We have heard the figure of $9.7 billion that this government has invested in science. That is the budget estimate for 2015-16, so it may well be higher than that depending on what happens with the R&D tax incentive and how that plays out. There are a significant number of businesses that have registered and we believe there is a very high take-up of that particular tax incentive, so the figure may well be higher than the $9.7 billion. That compares to $9.5 billion in 2012-13. It takes into account that there was an efficiency dividend of just over two per cent, which was applied to CSIRO.
I will happily talk more about CSIRO, which is a great institution and I certainly support it. It will go from strength to strength. We are delivering record funding for CSIRO. We are providing $3.1 billion over the forward estimates, which is an increase of nearly $50 million to CSIRO over the forward estimates. That is a pretty good outcome. We are also focusing on some really critical areas, things that are so desperately needed if we are to become the productive nation we are destined to be. I have spent quite a bit of time over the last 12 months and well beyond that talking to many of our scientists and researchers about the issues that are important to them.
I will preface what I am about to say by making a couple of comments on innovation. Innovation is front and centre of what this government will be achieving over the coming years. Innovation is something we need to embrace. We need to look at start-ups but we need to be very conscious that there are many businesses out there doing wonderful and exciting things that are clearly innovative. We need to be doing what we can to promote their work and demonstrate that there are many things—processes, procedures, systems and technology—already out there that will help these businesses become innovative.
Recently, I was up in Bundaberg with the member for Hinkler. He put on an absolutely fantastic community science forum. Well done on that. It was very well attended. One of the things we did at that forum was listen to a number of businesses that were doing some wonderful work in the Bundaberg area. One of the standouts for me—and there were quite a few that day—was Sweet Sensations Farm. We heard from the farm manager, Craig Van Rooyen, who has been working closely with Central Queensland University. He is trialling a non-lethal method of pest management in his orchards. He is using drones to scare off the bats, particularly the flying foxes. It is a non-lethal method and uses existing technology. He is adapting that and using it in agriculture. That is very innovative. He is leading in that area of non-lethal pest management. That is just one of the examples we heard about that day. So innovation is something we have to look at in its broadest possible STEM.
There are many things this government is focusing on. I am happy to talk at length about STEM but we understand that our early- and mid-career scientists need our support. We understand the role of basic and fundamental research. We understand that science deserves—and is demanding, rightfully—that there should be a long-term decadal plan. I can assure our science community that we are there supporting you.
In many areas of policymaking we have clear and admitted divisions between us and the government, but here they are trying to blur the lines. Under Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister we hear much talk of optimism, of exciting times. But that masks an unwillingness to grapple with the real issues facing Australia: our real productivity challenges, in respect of which innovation is the key. We agree on this much. But we have heard two speakers—two assistant ministers, as they are now called—talk around the problems. I understand the assistant minister who led off this debate for the government talking about exciting times—they are exciting times for him, as they are for the new Prime Minister, but they are not for many Australians. These are not times in which we can be as confident as we should be about our future, because the work is not being done. We have before us a government which has a rhetoric that is full of confidence. But it is misplaced confidence, because the vision for the future is empty. We see a profound failure to invest—indeed, to have confidence in our people and in ideas, as we have seen from the contribution of the assistant minister in particular—and a failure to have confidence in our future direction. This is a stark contrast with Labor's record—Labor's record in government and Labor's continuing leadership in opposition under Bill Shorten.
On the Labor side we have a record in terms of innovation that we are very proud of. Under the previous Labor governments we built a national approach to fostering innovation, with a 50 per cent increase in our investment in research and science and innovation over the period of Labor government. We will come to what has happened under this government shortly. Under Labor we saw a massive expansion of involvement in higher education, the critical building block of a successful innovation future. We saw the commissioning of the vital McKeon review, which had a road map to build on our world-class medical research capacity and steer it towards commercialisation. This matter has been briefly touched upon by government speakers but is an area where we have massively underachieved as a nation, where we have not done justice to the great basic research work that has been done through enabling it to be exploited to the benefit of the Australian community. This is a challenge where it is critical that we do more than simply speak hollow words about the enabling role of government. We need to think clearly about what that role should be.
Ten minutes from the newly-minted assistant minister, and he had nothing to say—perhaps the hackathon will solve this problem. But it was not a contest of ideas, because the government offered just one: that government should do less. Government has been doing less under this government, and it is not looking very pretty. We have seen Enterprise Connect, a fantastic support for more than 30,000 businesses, ripped apart. We have seen Commercialisation Australia, which was doing good work in expanding the commercialisation of great Australian ideas, fall apart. It is important to acknowledge the new responsibilities, of innovation and start-ups, of the shadow parliamentary secretary, the member for Chifley. Though they are new formal responsibilities, the member for Chifley has been leading this debate and leading a high-level engagement with the start-up community in our universities for quite some time. He offers a template that government members should be following.
The Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech sets out a road map that could be a bipartisan road map to a bold innovation future. The start-up year is one idea. The investments in higher education, providing certainty to enable the sort of research that we need to secure an innovation future, is something that is at the core of this government's failings and at the core of the failings of the now minister for innovation, the former failed minister for education. We see the agenda to boost STEM and support coding. We see in Labor's plan a real vision to underpin an innovation future, and on the other hand we see a failure to invest, and a vision of government that is almost non-existent. We are seeing the critical impact of cuts to CSIRO and the effective dismantling of the cooperative research centre network. A new minister and a new Prime Minister with new rhetoric cannot match the reality.
As the member for Greenway said in leading off the debate, we have a government here which is long on ambition but short on commitment. We have a government that is shirking the productivity challenge that Australia faces because its only answer is to resort to ideology—the ideology of a government withdrawing from economic activity and the ideology that says the answer to every problem is to depress wages, not to invest in people or in their ideas. (Time expired)
I am very happy to be addressing the chamber on this particular matter of public importance. I note it is about Australia's economic growth and productivity and I note it was tabled by the member for Greenway, who happens to not be here—she is obviously not so interested in the topic after she has had what she—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Oh—it is the brains trust from the CFMEU! We will get something from you, mate. I am very happy as the new Assistant Minister for Productivity to be discussing Australia's economic growth and productivity. The government has a whole range of issues on the agenda that we are implementing. I will go through them in the course of the next five minutes. They go to the free trade agreements that we are implementing in this country; they go to the small business policies that we are implementing; they go to the NBN rollout that we are implementing; they go to the innovation agenda that the new Assistant Minister for Innovation and the Assistant Minister for Science are working on.
Productivity is very, very important for a country. What is productivity? Some people think that it is just an economist's term. There is a whole bunch of schoolkids in the gallery. It is not just an economist's term, it is what it is, in a sense, a common-sense interpretation of the word. Productivity is about taking the things you have got—the labour, the capital, the IT equipment, the computers or whatever it is—and using them as efficiently as possible. To be productive and to increase productivity is a good thing, whatever you are doing—whether you are producing goods and services in the private sector or you are concentrating on the public provision of health services or education services. Productivity is vital to the Australian economy.
Recently, the Productivity Commission put out its most recent productivity update and that is dated July 2015, so it is hot off the press. The recent record in terms of productivity in Australia has not been so good, and that is why it is an issue for debate in Australia. During the period of the last government—the last Labor government from 2007 up to 2013—unfortunately, productivity in Australia went backwards. It declined—minus 0.1 per cent. It is not good.
This government are attempting to get productivity as strong as possible and to get it back to where it is in the long-term trend for Australia—that is, a productivity growth of 0.8 per cent. These are not very big numbers but they are very, very significant numbers—if you can get up to a growth rate of around 0.8 per cent or one per cent as an annual rate. At the moment, it is 0.4 per cent. In the period we have been in government, we have got it up to 0.4 per cent. So we have done very well compared to the previous six years, when it was simply minus 0.1 per cent.
What are we doing to do that, to ensure that that is happening? I will get to the trade agreements, for example. The fact is that we are also doing reviews of taxation, we are doing reviews of workplace relations, we are doing reviews of competition policy and the financial systems inquiry is there. These are all very, very big areas of sectors of the economy. We are looking at what we can do to make sure that we can produce the goods in the most efficient way and strengthen the economy, strengthen the revenue base of governments in Australia and, therefore, provide the social welfare net, the education services, the scientific research by the CSIRO—which is at record levels, I understand, from the Assistant Minister for Science—and other education provision in this country.
The big things that have happened recently are the three free trade agreements. We have one going with Japan. We have one going with Korea. We hope that, by the end of this year, we will have one going with China. I really appreciate the outbreak in bipartisanship that might be happening with regard to China. That will be a big, big benefit to the country. Now, we have the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which is another great, great deal that we have been able to negotiate, and I hope it can be introduced in the near future.
I am excited by the MPI topic. I have the feeling of optimism. I was even more excited when I saw the three gentlemen on the frontbench over there—the three amigos of the leadership apocalypse: the members for Eden-Monaro, Longman and Mitchell, who sit on the frontbench as reward for their loyal support for the member of Warringah! They have been rewarded by their roles, and I am really happy for them. I am really happy to be debating them. Unfortunately, the member for Longman's first outing as the assistant minister was a pretty desperate attempt. We had 10 minutes of 'feelpinions'. We had 10 minutes of 'feelpinions' like, 'Why we can't we love each other.'
Government members interjecting—
Never mind those nasty, inconvenient facts. Never mind those awful facts that get in the way of your case, because the truth is that you have been dreadful at supporting industry and innovation policy for the last two years. We had the great, gold nugget that government must enable people by leaving them alone—government must enable by not helping. You do not enable by exiting. I have been involved in industry and innovation policy for 15 years. I have sat on many innovation councils, and I have not met a single small business or entrepreneur who has not asked for government assistance—not a single one who has not asked for government assistance and who has not had an idea about how government can support them to grow their business to employ more Australians to sell more products. This concept of enabling by exiting, quite frankly, is moronic. It is simply moronic and is ideology without any factual basis.
The one thing I agreed with the member for Longman about—I am actually going to be nice to the member for Longman for two seconds
Opposition members interjecting—
Steady on, I know! It is going to feel strange for a minute! The one thing I agree with him on is that we need to be better at applied research. This country is great at blue sky research, but we need to improve applied research. Our dividend for every dollar we spend on applied research is not great. We do not do it by cutting $2 billion of industry and innovation programs. You do not do it by cutting $500 million that was a precincts program that was specifically designed in response to industry requests to turn research and industry towards each other—$500 million gone because of the philistines over the other side. You do not cut $300 million in venture capital assistance through the IIF's that the last Labor government put in place—gone because those on the other side say that you need venture capital but the government will not provide a role.
I will let the member for Longman into a little secret—Israel is a great paragon of applied research, but you really need to acknowledge the huge role that Israeli government, through the Israeli defence force, has played in supporting those small businesses. It is a complete furphy to say that the Israeli private sector does it by themselves. Again, if you look at innovations from US Silicon Valley, they are all products of the huge US government investment in things such as the defence industry. You need to have a bit of history in this area—a bit of knowledge and a bit of experience—and sadly the member for Longman is lacking.
You just have to look at the contribution from their senior people—their deep commitment to these areas! I went back and looked through Hansard to look at what the new Prime Minister's contribution was on, say, jobs in his 11 years in parliament. The new Prime Minister—when you exclude his speeches about people having done a good job—has mentioned jobs in parliament 18 times. He has mentioned jobs 18 times in his 11 year parliamentary career. He has mentioned innovation 16 times. You can look it up yourselves. By contrast, he has mentioned arrogance and pride 25 times—so he has some self-awareness! He has mentioned rugby, sailing and cafes 18 times, as well—very important things! I would submit that jobs and innovation are slightly more important to talk about than rugby, sailing and cafes, but that this the level of devotion from the new Prime Minister. The new Minister for Industry and Innovation has mentioned innovation 23 times in his 22-year parliamentary career. By contrast, he has mentioned wine and Amanda Vanstone 23 times. He has mentioned 'fixing' 47 times, which is great. And he has mentioned Kathy Jackson and the HSU 20 times. They are the priorities of the new Minister for Industry and Innovation. That is the sad pity of this entire debate. All we get on their side is empty rhetoric, while they cut billions and billions of dollars away from support for innovation, and that is a huge pity. I am keen to hear from the third amigo.
I have to say it is not the audacity of hope over there, is it? There are not many budding Barack Obamas sitting on that bench—not many ideas, not much innovation and not much hope that we can see coming from the opposition benches. There are a few—as we heard just now—budding Roger Corbyns over there, because the member for Charlton says: 'Everyone I meet asks me for money. Everyone I have ever met on any government body I have ever sat on has asked me for a buck.' You know, Member for Charlton, you can say no to people who ask you for a dollar. In fact, coming from the Australian Labor Party, you should say no more often, Member for Charlton. You should say no when people ask you for money.
It is the case that the Turnbull government is interested in innovation and science. Indeed, we are spending a lot more money on science now that we have exited the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, when—of course they may not know it over there—something in the order of $82.9 million was cut from the CSIRO between the years 2011-12 and 2016-17. This was on top of the cuts of $63.4 million in 2008. Some people in the gallery, some people listening to this debate and some of my colleagues on the government benches are wondering: is this possibly the lamest MPI that we have ever had in the history of this parliament? I have to say that it is very much the case that it might be. But, if we are talking about the CSIRO, I want to say that the former Labor government, which the member for Greenway was in, cut money from the CSIRO. In terms of innovation, Kim Carr, who is still in the science and research innovation portfolio, admitted something about those cuts that was very innovative. He is a very innovative fellow, the shadow minister for innovation, because he admitted that the cuts to science, the cuts to the CSIRO, made by the previous Labor government had to be taken and had to be tough, 'because we are fighting a war on inflation'. You might think that inflation is about the monetary supply. Thousands of years of economic theory might tell you that inflation has certain factors that contribute to it, but this shadow minister for innovation thinks that science funding creates inflation within Australia and that the way to fight the war on inflation is to cut science funding.
So not only do we have an MPI that is one of the lamest we have ever had in this parliament's history; we also have a complete misnomer in that the previous government cut funding. This matter is so unimportant we had the shadow minister leave us for most of the debate. He was not even listening to the debate. But I know that many of us here would think that there were some arguments that would come across—ideas. We heard a lot of talk about ides. But I listened carefully to the contributions from the members for Charlton, Scullin, Greenway and Chifley, in all of their longwindedness, and I tried to write down the key arguments and the key ideas they were putting in favour of this debate. The best thing I came up with after 20 or 30 minutes of debate was a phrase that I put on this piece of people in my notebook, 'this page intentionally left blank', because really we heard nothing about what this MPI is about.
I have a piece of advice for the member for Greenway: this is called a matter of public importance because it is supposed to be important. It is supposed to be about something important. It is supposed to be so important that you stay in the chamber and listen to the debate, member for Greenway, and you do not leave for three-quarters of the debate. It is supposed to be so important that the member for Scullin prepares his remarks in advance and delivers them with some sort of enthusiasm. It is supposed to be so important that you send in somebody more important than the member for Charlton to talk about it. If this matter is so important, let us have some debate about ideas, let us have some debate about policy and let us have some real argument about something.
As the Assistant Minister for Innovation said, the new paradigm is here. We are talking about ideas and innovation. There is more funding for science. There is more funding for STEM. We are talking about innovation and start-ups and a new culture in this country, where every economic policy is directed towards economic growth, towards growth in start-ups and towards the government of the 21st century.
All I would say to the Australian parliament is: please innovate in your own ranks and come up with a better MPI so we can have a reasonable debate in the Australian parliament, because the Australian people want us focused on the economic settings that will allow for start-ups to grow and start up their own businesses without the government's involvement, not by opening the government's chequebook, and not by going around to see the member for Charlton and saying 'Can I have more money,' and having him say yes. He always says yes, because he does not know how to say no when someone asks him for government money. This matter of public importance is unimportant. (Time expired)
In the past months, we have seen opposite something of a corporate hostile takeover. I use the term advisedly. In the sector that I have spent the majority of my career working in, the ICT and technology sector, we have a bit of a passion for disruption and for innovations that do things in a different way, turn the show upside down and make things happen in a completely new way. That is not what has happened across from us over the previous months. What we have seen is a takeover where new faces are sitting on top of an established organisation. It is a reorg, and the marketing division has been sacked. We have seen a new salesman appointed, but unfortunately for the Australian innovation system the products division has remained untouched. The R&D remains cobwebbed from neglect.
As the member for Scullin noted, we are at one in this place in the importance of innovation, but it pains us to see the lack of interest from those opposite, because fundamentally innovation underpins productivity growth in this country, but innovation can be fetishised in this building. Frankly, it is something that is talked about by far more people in this building than actually understand it. At its most basic level, innovation is about doing things that we are already doing more efficiently or doing completely new things. Start-ups are an important part of the innovation ecosystem, but the Australian innovation system is much broader. It relies on every Australian worker having the skills that they need to identify opportunities to do things differently. It relies on every small business being staffed by employees who have the ability to spot opportunities for doing things in a new way. That is why it is so disappointing to see the lack of action from the Turnbull-Abbott-Turnbull coalition on ensuring that these skills are being spread throughout the Australian economy.
Some of the most important skills that we need to teach all Australians at the moment is the set of skills that is referred to in the ICT sector as computational thinking. Computational thinking is a concept that was championed by a Microsoft executive some years ago. It is not a radical concept. It is something that the conservative Prime Minister in the UK, David Cameron, has mandated that kids learn from their first year of schooling in the United Kingdom. It is something that the Estonian government mandates at all levels of schooling in Estonia. But it is something that is completely absent, regrettably, from the Australian curriculum and the Australian education system. The way to understand the importance of computational thinking is that it is not, as the former troglodyte Prime Minister described it, teaching nine-year-olds how to code. We do not want nine-year-old's writing Python scripts. We do want all Australian kids, from primary school through to high school, students at university and new workers in the workplace understanding the basic literacies of the new digital era that we live in. We need our Australian workforce to not only understand how to use technology but to understand the way it works at a fundamental enough level for them to use it for problem-solving and for the purposes of innovation. They need to understand skills like algorithmic thinking, informatics, data analysis and statistical inference—skills that are not prioritised in our education sector at the moment.
The way to think about this metaphorically is that it is the difference between being able to ride a tricycle and a bicycle. At the moment, Australians are fantastic at riding tricycles. Australian workers can pick up a new piece of technology and work out how to use it very quickly. Unfortunately, we are not investing in teaching them the additional skills of learning how to ride a bike, learning the new skills that will enable them to get to new places and use technologies to solve problems and change the way that they do things. Unfortunately, not only has this skill been neglected by those opposite but we are going in the wrong direction. The new minister for innovation, 'the fixer', in his previous role as the Minister for Education, presided over a review of the Australian curriculum that recommended the removal of the teaching of digital technology skills from the Australian curriculum. The little that we are doing at the moment is apparently too much for those opposite. The corporate hostile takeover could not tolerate a bit of disruption.
Thankfully, Labor understands the importance of this. In our last budget-in-reply, we committed to ensuring that computational thinking will be taught in all primary schools and schools across the country. We committed to upskilling 25,000 primary and secondary school teachers in STEM skills so that they can teach those skills. We offered 25,000 scholarships to STEM university graduates to help them continue their studies and become STEM teachers, pushing these important innovative skills throughout the Australian economy and throughout the small businesses that we rely on for this innovation, including the workers that will do this innovation. We have committed to reversing the 20 per cent cuts to university funding made by those opposite, creating a smart investment fund and developing smart financing initiatives. In the tech sector, you say, 'Disrupt or be disrupted.' This government will be disrupted. (Time expired)
As this debate comes to its conclusion, I get the job of summing up. The positive about that is that we have no more contributions from those opposite that we have to sit through, which is very fortunate. The Assistant Minister for Science was right. We are investing $9.7 billion in science, research and innovation in the 2015-16 budget. That is $9,700 million. That is an enormous amount of taxpayers' money. We are providing record funding to the CSIRO over four years—$3.1 billion—and it is going up every year; it is not going down. That is a very simple economic fact. It is increasing. We are putting money into things like the $395 million Entrepreneurs' Program. There are things within the department of industry. We are helping local businesses to employ more people and expand.
We can look at what those on the other side of the House did when they were in government. We are fairly certain of that. When in government, they cut $82.9 million from the CSIRO in 2011-12 to 2016-17. They did not put it up; they cut $82.9 million from the CSIRO. There is not only that. In 2008, they took out another $63.4 million. That is a substantial amount of money and yet they are here telling us that our increases are not good enough. What did the CSIRO say about that? The CEO at that time said:
We are seriously disappointed, but that is their call and we disagree with it.
As they say, that is an understatement. What else did they cut? They cut $40.5 million from the Cooperative Research Centres in the 2011-12 budget, and what happened as a result? Three agricultural CRCs were abolished—gone. We hear a lot about these people with country Labor and the wonderful thing with a hashtag in front of it.
I am very pleased that the shadow minister for agriculture is here, because the people in the bush know exactly what happens when Labor are in government. They destroy the bush; they cut things like the agricultural CRC; they closed the live cattle trade overnight; and they cut thousands of jobs for people who are truck drivers, people who are musterers and people who provide services. Within 24 hours—overnight—and no notice, they shut them down and cost this country and the people who live in the bush millions of dollars. It is absolutely shameful.
There was the contribution from the member for Greenway. She talked about a big game and this side of the parliament being all talk. On this side, the things that we have include vision. We have vision, we know how to plan, we know how to implement and we know how to build structures that help business. It is not government that employs. Regardless of how much money we might have, the government cannot employ every Australian. It simply will not work. You need to have structures for them to be successful and you need to take action. We need to get it done. I will talk about that very soon—exactly what we are doing on the ground, in my seat, in the electorate of Hinkler.
On the other side, what do they have? They have a giant stack of drink coasters. Every now and again, they might come up with an idea and they will write it down with a pen and then spend thousands or billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. The member for Chifley asked rightly: what innovation do we have in Hinkler? I am quite happy to answer the member for Chifley. We have any number of people who have been incredibly innovative. We can look at Sweet Sensations Farm and Mr Craig Van Rooyen. He is using drone technology as a nonlethal method to combat flying foxes. Flying foxes and drones, would you believe, in Bundaberg, in my seat. Run4 owner, Dr Henry Thomas, has built a biotic runner to try to help people who possibly cannot run because of the impacts of running on the road. We have Bundaberg Walkers Engineering—someone who has been there for 125 years—innovating in not only the sugar industry but heavy manufacturing. They are a foundry. They perform activities all over the world. They are using 3-D spatial technology right now to map overseas infrastructure to try to make them more competitive with international companies.
Jack Milbank, a 2006 Nuffield scholar, with a Bachelor of Applied Science, is the CEO of three Bundaberg based businesses, including the Bargara Brewing Company. This is a gentleman who had been importing yeast from overseas and decided he did not want to import from overseas any more. 'How do I get yeast? Well, I brew beer.' At the recent science forum he really encouraged lots of students to take up STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—because STEM leads to beer. That was his line: STEM leads to beer! What a fantastic innovation for my electorate. Bargara Brewing Company, right there in Bundaberg, making their own product. This is the sort of thing we need.
Best Practice Software—Lorraine Pyefinch—is one of the largest providers in the country of software for medical people, for GPs, and it is based out of Bundaberg. So we have things on the ground. We are taking action and we are getting it done.
The time for the discussion has concluded.
I thank members who have contributed to this debate. It has been a fulsome debate. I would have to say that I think it has been a partisan debate, but it is reasonable that people will want to make their contributions to what is really an important area of reform. I would just like to make a few observations about the legislation and some of the comments that have been made.
The government has made it clear that it is committed to safe, secure and efficient transport systems, and this is unambiguously the case for coastal shipping. The current system has clearly failed. Just look at the facts. Under Labor the fleet of major Australian registered ships over 2,000 deadweight tonnes with coastal licences plummeted from 30 vessels, in 2006-07, to just 15, in 2013-14. The number of ships on the Transitional General Licence Register has dropped from 16 to just eight. Between 2000 and 2012, shipping's share of Australia's freight fell from 27 per cent to just under 17 per cent, while the volume of freight across Australia grew by 57 per cent. Over the first two years of Labor's coastal trading act, there was a 63 per cent decline in the carrying capacity of the major Australian coastal trading fleet. Looking forward, at this rate Australia's overall freight task is expected to grow by 80 per cent, come 2030, but coastal shipping will increase by only 15 per cent.
This is not to mention the increase in freight rates reported by some shipping users, or the many instances where the current system has proved inflexible, cumbersome and, frankly, impractical. For instance, Gypsum Resources Australia outlined in their submission to the Senate committee how they are losing business to Thailand under the current system. They said:
In February 2014 GRA applied for, and was subsequently denied, a temporary licence (TL) to enable it to compete for gypsum sales in Brisbane. The dominant factor in the denial was an objection by a GL holder to the granting of a TL to GRA. The denial of the licence rendered GRA's tender for the work uncompetitive. These customers were lost to Thai and WA gypsum which were transported on international vessels. Neither GRA nor the GL holder benefited.
These concerns have been echoed by Cristal Mining, who said in their submission:
The Act, in its current form, puts Australian industry at risk of operational shut downs and possible job losses.
The Australian Institute of Petroleum said:
The current cumbersome and inflexible regulations impede the efficient operation of domestic refineries and petroleum supply chains around Australia, do not facilitate liquid fuel supply security, and do not advance the objectives of the coastal trading legislation or the local shipping industry.
These sentiments have been recounted to me time and time again. The government's aim is to facilitate a greater use of coastal shipping services in Australia. We want coastal shipping to do more, not less, as our freight task continues to grow into the future
As an island nation, with the majority of our population living around the coast, it makes sense to do so, yet under the current legislative arrangements we are failing to capitalise on these opportunities. As Incitec Pivot, Australia's largest fertiliser provider, said in their submission to the Senate:
Deregulation of coastal shipping is needed to lift the competitiveness of the sector, reduce costs on business, increase flexibility and support opportunities for new investment and employment in Australian manufacturing.
What is clear is that Labor's reforms have failed coastal shipping and unless we act now businesses relying on coastal shipping will be sunk, and I fear that the Australian industry would just continue its decline. Without changes to economic and regulatory settings, shipping will not be able to deliver the competitive, efficient services that Australian businesses need.
The amendments to the coastal trading bill are necessary to facilitate the government's objective of supporting the provision of more-competitive and efficient coastal shipping services. The bill replaces the existing licensing framework with a single permit, significantly reducing red tape and regulatory burden.
The reforms will retain key maritime skills and support jobs growth in those parts of Australia where industry relies on competitive shipping to remain viable, such as Tasmania. The bill maintains a framework of entitlements, including part B of the Seagoing Industry Award 2010, and the Fair Work Act 2009, for seafarers on foreign ships predominantly engaged in coastal shipping.
Reducing red tape is the key priority of this government and a central aspect of these policy reforms. Currently, a holder of a temporary licence needs to provide information to the government three times about each voyage. Under the new arrangement the requirement will be removed to apply for a voyage, based on an estimate of what may happen, report before the voyage on what is likely to take place, and then report on what actually took place. Instead, permit holders will need to report on voyages only after the fact.
Importantly, the bill extends coverage of the existing act to allow the carriage of petroleum products from Australia's offshore facilities to the mainland for processing. It also will, for the first time, allow ships to carry out scheduled maintenance in Australia, under a permit. This change will encourage the use of our dry-docking and repair facilities and help to create a sustainable maritime cluster. Changes to the Shipping Registration Act 1981 will make entry to the Australian International Shipping Register easier and will reduce the barriers to ships on this register providing coastal shipping services.
The member for Grayndler in his speech to the second reading debate remarked that ships paying Third World wages will be plying our coast with unseaworthy vessels, having a devastating impact on our marine environment. The claims made by those opposite that the bill before the House will impact on Australia's maritime environment or stringent safety standards are simply wrong. As I mentioned in my earlier remarks in this debate, Australia's strong environmental and safety laws will continue to apply to all ships operating in Australian waters. Australian and foreign-flagged ships operating in Australian waters are subject to Australia's port state control regime, administered by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Our port state control regime is second to none in world terms. In fact, AMSA's port state control statistics indicate that, in the 2014 calendar year, the deficiency rate for Australian-flagged ships was 3.9 deficiencies per inspection, compared with a deficiency rate of 2.9 per inspection for foreign-flagged ships. So, again, the sensationalist claims by those opposite are simply not supported by the facts. Indeed, even two of the examples they cite as evidence for their claims, the Sage Sagittarius and the Shen Neng, were not even carrying coastal cargoes but were engaged in international trading.
The facts are: we have the world's best-practice maritime safety and environmental laws, which are rigorously enforced by AMSA, and, when the statistics are analysed, foreign-flagged and Australian-flagged vessels come out basically on par when it comes to reported deficiencies. And the facts are: if you do the wrong thing, regardless of the flag your ship carries, AMSA will detain your ship until it is fixed; and, if you still do not get the message, they can direct you out of Australian ports and not to come back.
As for Third World wages and conditions, I remind the House that wages and conditions for Australian-flagged vessels remain unchanged under this legislation. Additionally, part B of the modern award, introduced while Labor was in government, will apply to all seafarers on foreign-flagged vessels from day one who spend the most of their time trading in Australian waters. Significantly, the government will not issue further permits to a foreign-flagged vessel unless it has complied with past obligations to pay Australian wages. Foreign-flagged vessels trading for a limited time in Australian waters will be governed by international arrangements. This is a condition which is common practice around the globe where foreign vessels carry coastal cargo. Acknowledging that shipping is an interconnected international business that operates, by its inherent characteristics, in many different jurisdictions, it, however, must also be noted that the Maritime Labour Convention, implemented by the former Labor government and supported by the coalition, will provide a safety net to all seafarers in Australian waters. The Maritime Labour Convention provides an international safety net of standards for regulating seafarer employment relationships for the world's seafarers. To date, 64 International Labour Organization member states, representing more than 80 per cent of the world's shipping tonnage, have ratified the convention. These minimum standards cover a wide range of areas, including employment, accommodation, health protection, medical care, welfare and social security protection.
In his second reading speech, then Minister Albanese said:
The MLC is intended to provide decent working conditions for seafarers by setting minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship.
He said we need the MLC to be ratified because:
We cannot reasonably expect seafarers who are subject to Third World living and working conditions to provide First World shipping services.
Maritime Union of Australia secretary and former International Transport Workers' Federation president Paddy Crumlin said of the MLC:
By lifting international minimum standards, the MLC promotes fair and decent work …
The coalition supported the passage of this legislation at that time. Let me be clear: this legislation makes no changes to the application of the MLC. The MLC will still apply to provide, in Labor and the MUA's own words, decent conditions for seafarers. As the MUA said when the current legislation was enacted:
The Bills represent over 10 years of work by the MUA, especially National Secretary Paddy Crumlin, and follows the endorsed support from members at the recent Seafarers Conference and National MUA Conference.
Over the last month—
before the legislation was carried—
the core team has been working 24-7 to make sure the legislation was complete and presentable, and that there were sufficient votes [in] the lower house.
And now even the MUA acknowledge that Labor's legislation is flawed. The MUA have said that the operation of the coastal trading act has indicated:
… a need for some streamlining and additional commerciality in its administration.
They went on to note that the act was 'not as effective' as they would like.
I can remind the House of the MUA's record in fostering a competitive employment environment in Australia. As senior Labor figure Martin Ferguson said:
I think the Maritime Union WA branch is a rogue union.
I think they are not only potentially going to kill jobs for their own members, children and grandchildren in the future the way they've conducted themselves.
I think it's about time the rest of the union movement fronted up to the fact that they are now killing jobs in manufacturing.
As the member for Brand noted in relation to unreasonable MUA demands on resource projects:
We do have to be conscious that unreasonable wage demands do place pressures on projects.
So the former Labor government, with its colleagues in the MUA, have created the current regime after a lot of deliberation and, in doing so, created a system that has actually seen the capacity of Australian-flagged vessels drop by 63 per cent. Estimates of seafarer job losses used by many opposition members and provided in the submission to the Senate inquiry by the Australia Institute, a report that was commissioned by the MUA and repeated in their own submissions, are a significant overestimate of the likely job impacts of the reforms and ignore the economy-wide benefits to manufacturing, resources, cement and aluminium, fertiliser, petroleum, sugar, grain and many other products that can or could use coastal shipping if it were more competitive.
If we do not get coastal shipping right, there will be more trucks on the roads. If we do not get coastal shipping right, jobs in the industry, which has declined so much over the years, will continue to drift away. The reality is that we need to be a strong shipping nation. Because we are an island continent, because we are so dependent on international freight, we need to have a shipping industry that works well, employs Australians and creates the skills that are necessary to ensure the effective operation and management of our coastal sea lanes. Because we need those jobs, it is important that we have a strong and healthy shipping industry.
This legislation is a conscientious attempt to try to make the system work better to make sure that the shipping share of the Australian freight task goes up, not down; that opportunities are provided for young Australians to have careers in this important industry; and that we have a regulatory environment that encourages innovation, encourages Australian freight forwarders to use shipping and therefore delivers a significant boost to the Australian economy.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Grayndler has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
First, I want to quote from the government official modelling, the cost-benefit analysis, in the explanatory memorandum at page 156. This applies to the preferred option 6. It says:
Many of the operators currently operating under the Australian General Register would likely re-flag their vessels in order to compete with the foreign operators who enjoy the benefit of comparatively lower wage rates. Australian seafarer jobs would be adversely affected as Australian operators re-flag from the Australian General Register.Ship operators are likely to replace Australian seafarers (paid under EA rates) with foreign seafarers (paid under ITF rates).
I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that there was some considerable debate, including in the Senate legislation committee, about the implications of this legislation. In another contribution, I will go to the evidence of Mr Bill Milby and others, which was presented to that committee. Here we have evidence—not from someone else but from the government's own cost-benefit analysis in the explanatory memorandum—making it clear, and I quote again for the benefit of the minister, that operators:
… would likely re-flag their vessels in order to compete with the foreign operators who enjoy the benefit of comparatively lower wage rates.
I say to the minister that there in black and white are the implications of this legislation before this parliament for Australian jobs. It is beyond comprehension that a minister would bring this legislation to this House when it is so clear what the implications are. So I ask the minister: does he agree with this official government analysis in the explanatory memorandum, which says that if this legislation is carried:
Ship operators are likely to replace Australian seafarers (paid under EA rates) with foreign seafarers (paid under ITF rates).
In response to the shadow minister: in assessing what jobs are going to be gained and what jobs are going to be lost, you have to make a whole series of assumptions, and there is a great deal of room for variations in what those assumptions will be. For instance, I have heard members opposite talking about their being only 70 jobs left in Australian shipping as a result of this legislation. Clearly, that is absurd. The reality is that it in some cases there will be Australians on vessels that are not on vessels under the existing regime and that in other places there will be changes, in registration et cetera, that will have some impact.
While we are quoting, can I go to the regulatory impact statement, which I think makes the most telling comment of all in relation to this legislation. It says that the net economic benefit over 20 years from the adoption of this option will be of the order of $667 million. In other words, the gains to the Australian economy are very, very substantial indeed. They will come not just from within the shipping industry itself but because of the jobs that will not be lost on the Australian mainland because our shipping rates are uncompetitive. They will come from industry that is attracted to operate in Australia because we have a more competitive industry. The net employment situation is likely to be beneficial to our country, because we will not be losing as many jobs in this country from manufacturing and from a whole range of key industries that simply cannot compete with imported products, because of the cost of shipping. There are many examples, which were taken to the Senate and which have been reported all over the place, about Australian commodities not being able to compete with imports because of the cost of domestic shipping. We have classic stories, like it being cheaper to bring sugar from Thailand to Melbourne than to bring it from Mackay to Melbourne and it becoming cheaper to bring cement direct from China rather than to move it between one Australian port and another. That is costing jobs on the mainland. It means we cannot make cement and that our sugar producers do not have access to markets that otherwise they would have access to. All of that has to be taken into account in making assessments about what the best thing is for our national economy.
I am somewhat disappointed that the minister chose not to respond to the very specific quote that I used from his own legislation and that he is asking us to vote for. I also refer to the legislation at page 75 and 76 of the explanatory memorandum in the RIS. The government evaluates the savings there of its preferred option. At the bottom of page 75 and the top of page 76, the combined savings are evaluated. What it shows is that some $19 million in the preferred RIS—88 per cent of the savings—are from 'labour cost savings' and $2.4 million—the other 12 per cent—are so-called 'deregulatory savings'. The minister has made a fair bit of so-called red tape issues. What his own legislation shows and what the RIS of the preferred option shows is that 88 per cent of the savings that the government says will come from this legislation are a direct result of the difference between Australian wages and foreign wages. That is what it shows: almost nine in every $10. That includes, of course, taking away workers from their current coverage under the Fair Work Act.
We on this side of the House have used the analogy of the difference between the 'blue highway' and the Hume Highway. If freight is taken from Sydney to Melbourne down the Hume Highway, Australian wage rates apply. The Australian truck industry safety standards of the government apply. But, if it is taken on the 'blue highway'—again, a domestic freight task from Sydney to Melbourne—then foreign wage rates will apply. I wonder where the minister draws a distinction between the 'blue highway' and the Hume Highway. If he accepts the logic that lower wages are lower cost and, therefore, should be allowed to be paid then why is it that we do not allow for Filipino or other truck drivers from Third World nations—the sort of people who are brought in on flags of convenience to work on ships that are registered in flags of convenience—to drive trucks down the Hume Highway and be paid foreign wage rates? The implication for Linfox, for Toll and for other Australian truck operators is that they would go out of business.
The implication for the Australian shipping industry if they have to compete with foreign wages being paid on the domestic freight task is that they will not be able to compete. I go back to my previous contribution. That is why the legislation says very clearly that when you take these two things together ship operators are likely to replace Australian seafarers with foreign seafarers. That is the logic of this government's own legislation. That is the very purpose of this legislation. I would ask the minister to respond very specifically to the savings that are there at page 75 and page 76 of the legislation, which is the explanatory memorandum.
Again, my response has to include an element of my previous answer in that the reality is that the current situation is clearly not working. The number of registered ships has halved. Since this legislation has been in, the volume of Australian shipping capacity has reduced by 63 per cent. The current system is not working. It is not working for roads; it is not working for seamen. And it is certainly not working for Australian industry, because the reality has been that our manufacturing has become less competitive rather than more competitive. The number of seamen and, I presume, therefore, the number of members of the Maritime Union—who were obviously key people in drafting this legislation; they took the credit for it at the time and subsequently—must be smaller now than when this legislation was brought in, because there are fewer people employed in their trade. I think that is disappointing and it is something that I want to reverse.
Comparisons between the shipping industry and the rail and road industries do not stack up. Shipping is competing against shipping. But there is a domestic task where the various modes of transport can be involved and can therefore deliver the most economic movement of freight around the country, and they should be encouraged to go towards the most economic element. The obvious facts are that, unless shipping can pull its weight, unless we can have as many ships and, indeed, more ships involved in trade between our major ports then there are going to be more trucks on the road and, hopefully, more trains in the train system. We will have to spend billions of dollars on upgrading the roads and the railway lines so that we are able to effectively meet that task. Currently, what is happening is that business just ceases to exist. It cannot be competitive. We are bringing in, say, cement or sugar from Asia when it could be made and produced in Australia. Therefore, the wage level of the people engaged in transporting it around the country is in fact at an international wage level. They are at that level because we have not been able to maintain an effective Australian shipping industry.
So what we want to do is get rid of some of the red tape that revolves around the system that was legislated a couple of years ago and that has effectively made it so that the permit arrangements are unable to operat We believe in a second register. We supported it at the time that the government introduced it. But there is not a single ship on that register because there is red tape associated with it that is unacceptable to any shipowner. So we want to get away from it. Then it will not be a contest about whether or not we are competing between Australian wages paid in a truck or the part B wages paid on a ship; it will be whether or not there are Australians employed in a task or whether we are instead importing the product from China, Thailand or some other nation. I would prefer to have Australian jobs involved in shipping the product around our shores rather than importing products from overseas, shipped here exclusively by people on international wages.
I note that, in his response, the minister, when he did go to the specific question that I raised, said that the current legislation was not working for roads. He went on to not address at all, in my view, the absolute parallels that are there between the domestic freight task on sea, on rail and on road, and how, if you allow foreign wages to be paid by foreign companies competing against Australian wages and Australian companies, you destroy the level playing field. It is not rocket science here. It is demonstrated by the government's own legislation, indeed.
I hope the minister appreciates the fact that I am being very specific about what I am asking here in referring to the legislation, as is appropriate for the way that consideration in detail should be conducted. I refer the minister to page 152, to the cost-benefit analysis, which is the minister's own official modelling, and to table 5.15. It says that the preferred option, which is option 6, will have the following effect on the Bass Strait non-bulk trade. For the Tasmanians who might be present or listening to this, they might want to think before they vote on this legislation both here and, importantly, in the Senate. The official government modelling now uses a base case expectation of 100 per cent Australian crew. The preferred option, and the basis of the bill, shows 35 per cent Australian crew and 65 per cent mixed crew—that is, a 35 per cent reduction from the circumstance of there being 100 per cent. Given that it is the official modelling, has the government estimated how many actual seafarer jobs in the Bass Strait trade will be lost under the legislation?
The evidence before the Senate inquiry was that there were almost 400 seafarer jobs in the Bass Strait trade now and that most would be lost under the government's modelling. I want to ask whether the minister agrees with the modelling in the legislation that assumes the following with respect to the preferred option as it applies to the existing vessels in the Bass Strait non-bulk trade. The top of page 152 says this:
… we assume 4 vessels will register under a foreign register to reduce operating costs.
So it is very clear what they are suggesting in this legislation. Minister, which vessels does your official modelling assume will reflag from Australian flagged ships to foreign flagged ships? It is there in the assumptions in this legislation. Does the minister agree that the motivation for reflagging is the difference between Australian based wages and foreign wages? I might allow the minister to respond.
My understanding was that the model did actually identify for which vessels there was a likelihood they might change their flag and which ones were less likely to do so. I do not have that information in front of me but I am happy to provide it to the member at some later stage. But, having said that, it is modelling. Modelling is modelling. It relies on certain assumptions. Sometimes the assumptions are fulfilled and sometimes they are not. Indeed, there have been predictions made in some of the modelling that certain vessels in other places may change their flag, and the Australian owners have subsequently said that they would not be doing that. Assumptions have to be made in preparing this kind of modelling. The key assumptions, however, come quite clearly down in the regulation impact statement that this legislation will have benefits of around two-thirds of $1 trillion to the Australian economy over the next 20 years. That is a benefit to the Australian economy that I thought we all should want to grasp.
To assist the minister, my understanding is that the assumptions assume that two SeaRoad vessels and two Toll ships will reflag. Indeed, the evidence from SeaRoad before the legislation committee was that, as a result of the former government's legislation, they were about to invest in further investment in ships, which would have, of course, created jobs in Tasmania.
While we are on job losses—which is the key element here—at page 150 of the part of the cost benefit analysis the modelling in table 5.14 says that the preferred option, option 6, will have the following effect in cruise shipping. The base case now is 40 per cent Australian crewed—that is, 40 per cent of the cruise ships that operate around the Australian coast employ Australians. For option 6, the preferred option and the basis of the bill, the expectation is for zero Australian crew—zero. That is what is there in the legislation.
I refer it back to the minister, because it is quite an extraordinary statement to have in the legislation, particularly in the context of the evidence before the Senate inquiry from Mr Bill Millby of North Star Cruises, which I might take up as the next issue with the minister. But, firstly, I would ask him to respond to table 5.14 and I ask: how can the minister possibly defend bringing in legislation before this chamber that makes such recommendations.
Large cruise vessels are exempt from the requirements under the current legislation, and there is no change proposed in that regard. My personal view is that there is a market for cruises at the top end of the range for wholly Australian run operations. I think there is potential for that kind of niche market to be effectively filled by a skilled and well-managed entrepreneur, and that sort of arrangement can be successful in the market. I think that should be encouraged wherever it can be done. But the reality is that the cruise market in this country will continue to grow—it is very popular at the present time. One of the really important things in this legislation for the cruise industry is that for the first time they will be able to have their vessels dry-docked and serviced in Australia, where previously they would have had to be imported. I see this legislation as creating more Australian jobs in the maintenance and servicing of vessels—and indeed major overhauls and modification and refits of those vessels. There is real potential for Australia, which has good skills in this area, to be able to create extra jobs, and that is part of building a stronger economy.
To respond to the minister's last point: that is the consequence of removing any distinction in real terms between Australian flagged ships and foreign flagged ships in their ability to operate and to be present around the Australian coast. To argue that that is a plus is quite disingenuous. I met with the minister and indicated that, if the minister had practical suggestions to support Australian industry and Australian jobs, the opposition would certainly be willing to consider them.
When it comes to cruise shipping, we have the difference between 40 per cent Australian crews—because the large cruise vessels are exempt and are not part of the regime that applies for other vessels—and an expectation in the government's own modelling of zero per cent Australian crews. That fact indicates that it is the full expectation of the government that the cruise shipping industry with an Australian flag on the back will simply disappear.
That was the evidence given by North Star Cruises, particularly Mr Bill Millby. His submission was very clear. Does the minister accept Mr Millby's statement to the inquiry on 20 May 2015 that the following happened? I will read from Mr Millby submission.
The Executive Director's advice to me during that discussion was that if NSCA wanted to remain competitive with the foreign owned and crewed ships it should—quote "consider taking out a ship 'True North' off the Australian Shipping Register, re register the ship in a suitable foreign country, lay off our Australian crew and hire a cheaper foreign crew". When she suggested this I told her that I could not believe the suggestion she made and she said quote "to remain competitive in the world that is what we should do". At that point I asked for and was granted a meeting with her in her Canberra office to further discuss the issue—prior to the Legislation Amendment Bill being tabled.
Then on 16 June 2015 Mr Millby be met with Judith Zielke and Michael Sutton and the account of that meeting is this:
I asked how they expected Australian expedition ship owners such as NSCA to compete with the foreign crewed ships and remain in business and they suggested the following:-
1. First, take "True North: of the Australian shipping registry
2. Registered "True North" in a foreign country, and Re-flag our ship "True North" with a foreign flag.
3. Then replace the Australian crew (apart from the captain and the chief engineer) with foreign crew who would not be governed under the Australian labour laws and the Australian "Fair work Act"
4. The foreign crew would also be trained in a foreign country—
not Australia, saving more money.
This follows the statement from Tony Briggs, who was the head of the Cairns based Coral Princess group. He said he was selling out to foreign interests in anticipation of this legislation. Mr Briggs said:
There will never be another passenger ship built in Australia if there is no certainty on how we can operate. It is exporting jobs.
He did that with his business.
It is extraordinary that this evidence is not from the Labor Party or the MUA. This is evidence from businesses—the people who actually operate the cruise ship industry—the people who create jobs particularly in north-west Australia and in Far North Queensland. They are simply saying that this legislation anticipates that this would occur. It is not surprising that the bureaucrats told Mr Millby exactly what was in the legislation and that he had a choice of going out of business or reflagging his ship. Mr Millby was the subject of considerable criticism from yourself, Deputy Prime Minister, and the then Prime Minister in a totally inappropriate way. So I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: why is it that the operators, including Mr Milby, have got it wrong? It is very clear from the legislation, from the evidence that was given before the committee and from the FOI material that was tabled in the Senate from Ms Zielke and Mr Sutton, who confirmed that was an option that was put forward to Mr Milby. Of course, he did have another option: to just go out of business. That was the other option that was presented. What other option does Mr Milby have in order to compete with foreign flagged ships, with foreign crews, paying foreign wages in the competitive environment that is the cruise ship industry in the Kimberley?
Firstly, let me clarify something, because my advisers think I may have said something that I did not intend to say in relation to the large cruise vessels that are exempt, under the previous arrangements, from the requirements of the act. Under our act, of course, they are actually brought into the act, but they will be eligible for their 12-month permits, so it will have no impact on the composition of the cruise.
Moving on to the commentary about North Star cruises, frankly, all the information that anyone could want to see is available on the public record. What was not provided or listened to during the Senate hearings was sought by the member opposite through a freedom of information request, and those documents were all provided. So there is nothing being hidden whatsoever. I can do little more than repeat the comments that I made previously. My department has confirmed to me in writing—and the shadow minister has seen the letter—that at no stage was Mr Milby advised of any course of action. Being apprised of the various options available does not constitute advice of a particular course of action. I confirm again today that at no stage was Mr Milby advised—and I quote from the shadow minister's speech in the second reading debate:
… he should re-register his vessel overseas and sack his 50 Australian staff and replace them with cheap foreign labour.
Departmental officials testified as such before the Senate committee hearings into this bill, and this was reaffirmed by written advice from my department to me, which, for the benefit of the House, I will quote:
Commercial advice was not provided and no particular course of action was recommended to the company.
Ultimately, of course, these are commercial decisions for the owners of Mr Milby's company to make. The company has been competing with international cruise vessels for a long time, and I am sure it will continue to be able to do so into the future.
Additionally, I should note that under the government's proposed reforms it is not an option for someone to put a full foreign crew on a cruise vessel in Australia if they want to operate year-round on Australian shores—that is not permitted under the act. So that casts some doubt on the veracity of the testimony.
Finally, I reject any suggestion that I have been critical of Mr Milby. I admire the work that his company does and I think that it adds a dimension to a cruise in that part of Australia that adds significantly to our tourism reputation. I certainly wish him well for the future. It is true that a number of the state governments, and the Northern Territory in particular, want to open up that business to competition from vessels that may have a foreign flag. They think it is rather silly that someone has to travel up to Timor or Singapore or Indonesia to bring on provisions and load the vessel when they could do that in Darwin and therefore Australian jobs would be created on the land in the Northern Territory.
Those are the competing interests that are brought up in these kinds of debates. What we want to do as a government is provide a fair opportunity for all businesses to prosper in this country and to take advantage of the opportunities of our market, and to ensure that other people around the world as well can enjoy the magnificence of the north-west Australian scenery, and indeed other parts of regional Australia. So having more vessels operating around our shores will certainly create jobs in the tourism industry on land, and that also has to be taken into account in assessing the value of particular options. But, from my perspective, I was not present at the conversations that were allegedly held, but I have been given the word of my respected senior officers and I have no reason to doubt it.
I think the Deputy Prime Minister knows very well the distinction that he is drawing. The letter from Mr Mike Mrdak, the secretary of the department that was subject to the FOI application—which was only granted, it must be said, after a Senate direction was carried by a majority of the Senate—has in it very carefully chosen words. It says:
Commercial advice was not provided.
It says that and I accept that. It is not up to a department to give advice as to the running of a company. What it does confirm, however, are the various options available under the new framework and the option that was available and that was presented very clearly to Mr Milby. I do not know if the Deputy Prime Minister watched Mr Milby give evidence before the Senate. This was not a seasoned political operator; this was a businessman from Western Australia who went out of his way to attend the launch of the policy by the Deputy Prime Minister. He approached the Deputy Prime Minister for advice and was referred by the Deputy Prime Minster himself to Ms Zielke, who was at the launch at the curiously named Shipping Australia
In great Orwellian tradition, Shipping Australia represents the non-Australian shipping industry. This indicates that Australians want a shipping industry—that is why Shipping Australia call themselves Shipping Australia rather than 'Foreign Shippers'.
There is an important role for foreign shipping in this country—we do not argue that. The essential argument here is very clear, and the flaw in this legislation is very clear—the minister exposed it with his last contribution when he said 'we want fair opportunities for Australian business.' But this legislation does not present fair opportunities. It will have businesses operating side-by-side, working the same routes, whether it be in the freight industry around our coast or in the cruise ship industry, one of them paying Australian wages and their competitor paying cheaper foreign wages. In an industry where the margins are not substantial, that means that the Australian ship, to be able to compete, will have to remove the Australian flag and replace it with a foreign flag and replace their Australian workforce—with a couple of exceptions, I accept—with a foreign workforce being paid foreign wages. That is the purpose of the legislation. That is what the modelling says in this legislation.
It did not take Mr Milby to expose this—it is there in the legislation. Mr Milby's evidence made it, if you like, a much more retail discussion—it put a face to the consequences. I congratulate Mr Milby on his courage in standing up for Australian jobs. One of the things Mr Milby said in his evidence was yes you can do that, but he wants Australians to show visitors, whether they be from other parts of Australia or overseas, the great wonders of the Kimberley and the Australian coast—our pristine natural environment. That is why this is important. (Extension of time granted) Page 75 of the RIS of the preferred option says under the heading 'Costs':
The modelling undertaken for the cost-benefit analysis did not include the cost of the potential loss of Australian seafarer jobs.
It is extraordinary, Minister, that you have legislation before this parliament that says that 88 per cent of the savings will be due to labour cost savings, that says clearly what the job losses are estimated to be by sector and region, but which has no analysis of the economic consequences of those Australian job losses. I would have thought it was appropriate to have modelling of the following, at least: firstly, what are the consequences of the fact that you have less money in the economy as a result of Australian seafarers who live and work and have families and spend their income here in Australia being replaced by foreign crews who do not live and spend money here and create jobs in the local supermarket and local retail outlets, or buy services here in Australia; secondly, what are the consequences, therefore, of less GST being paid because of the fact that you are removing the income of those Australian workers; thirdly, what is the cost of less income tax being paid; and, fourthly, what is the cost of higher welfare costs? Northern Tasmania, in particular, has higher unemployment rates than is the average around Australia. The minister has accepted that the evidence in the modelling assumes that two SeaRoad and two Toll ships from Tasmania will re-flag, replacing their Australian workforce, with a couple of exceptions, with foreign workers. That leads to higher unemployment benefits and social security costs. Social costs occur when you have higher unemployment. The other area that does have higher unemployment than other parts of Australia is Northern Australia—Cairns and around the north-west of Australia. What are the social consequences of that loss? It is beyond me why the RIS of the preferred option did not undertake the modelling of the costs of 'the potential loss of Australian seafarer jobs'. I wonder whether the minister can respond to that.
The obvious response is that what has happened as a result of the uncompetitive nature of Australia's shipping industry is that the number of people employed in shipping is now down to just over 1,000 people. Presumably, if you go back far enough, there were tens of thousands involved in domestic shipping. Certainly over recent times, since the legislation introduced by the previous government, the number of ships with coastal licences has dropped from 30 to 15, and the number on the transitional register has dropped from 16 to 8. How many jobs were lost as a result of that? How many jobs were lost as a result of the changes introduced by the previous government?
I move on to the job losses occurring as a result of the fact that our domestic shipping industry has been uncompetitive. That has meant that jobs on the land have been lost because they have been unable to be competitive with imported products. But when you have, for instance, sugar coming from Thailand to Melbourne instead of from Mackay to Melbourne, the jobs that are created in Thailand as a result of producing that sugar for the people of Melbourne are jobs that are not being created in Mackay because there was an alternative source of supply. When the cement industry has to close operations in Australia because it cannot be competitive with Chinese cement that is coming in on internationally-flagged vessels which are paying international wages, those are jobs lost in Australia. So the equation is not simply restricted to who may be on a particular boat. It has to be examined in relation to the whole of the economy, and, when it comes to the RISs, that is the basis upon which they are prepared. The RIS has been prepared with a declaration from the Office of Best Practice Regulation as meeting all of the government's RIS requirements—the same requirements that the previous government had in place and presumably with the same kind of findings that there were in the RIS which was prepared by the previous government when they introduced their legislation in this regard. So examining the impacts of legislation in isolation ignores the flow-on effects that there have been as a result of us having an uncompetitive shipping industry.
I want our industry to be competitive, not just because I want to save jobs on the mainland, although that is very important, but I also want them to be able to be effective in ensuring that we have a more competitive transport system in our country. I would like to see the containers that are currently going on trucks from Melbourne to Brisbane every night travelling on a ship. Many of them are not particularly time sensitive in the length of their journey. Those are the sorts of vessels that should be going on ships, but we do not have ships that are able to undertake that task. I hear reports from time to time about somebody who is going to build a ship or might build one in the future, or that they are all going to flock in and join the second register initiative—an idea which of course I welcomed—but the second register has been a complete flop. There have been a number who have expressed interest, but, when they find out they have to pass everything by the MUA and have to have a whole set of regulations in place, it just becomes too hard and they go away.
I hope that with our new arrangements those people may be encouraged to join the second register and that they may be encouraged to employ Australians, because if we keep going the way we are—with the 30 ships down to 15, down to who knows what it will be in another two years time—then we will have no-one being trained to be a pilot to take vessels through the Great Barrier Reef. We will have no-one being trained with the capabilities to run tugs around our harbours. We will have no-one with the skills that are necessary for us, as an island continent, to be able to maintain effective transport systems around our nation.
We are not in the business of destroying jobs. We are in the business of trying to make a more competitive shipping industry that employs more Australians. I have to say that I sometimes wonder why some of these unionists who have lost their jobs in the sugar industry or in the cement manufacturing industry are not complaining that their jobs have been sacrificed for a guy who is on 26 weeks holiday a year on a ship somewhere or other. One job is being traded for another, and I think the union movement is being disingenuous if it counts the job that they want to try and save on the ship when it is costing jobs—eight, 10, a dozen or who knows how many—in land-based industries.
I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to page 80 of this legislation as part of the RIS. It relates directly to the comments that he has just made, and it says:
Stakeholders called for policy certainty to create greater certainty in business planning and perceived a propensity in Australia to change shipping regulations on a semi-regular basis, which they felt posed a high sovereign risk for coastal shipping operations in Australia.
The thing is that the legislation that this is amending was from 2012. It amended—100 years after the Navigation Act—the most significant reform that was there. The change of government was in 2013. Throughout that period, where it was clear to most observers that there was likely to be a change of government, the now government made it clear that they would not support that legislation and that they would seek to change it. That meant that investment did not occur to the extent that it would have occurred had that not been put forward. You cannot actually make a decision, in the beginning of 2013, to invest in a new ship, have it constructed and have it operating within a few months. And then companies gave evidence before this inquiry. I refer the minister to the evidence of SeaRoad Holdings, who said things very clearly in a submission to the senate committee. SeaRoad's Michael Easy warned that the legislation before the parliament would imperil the $100 million investment that they had made a decision on to build the first of two new cargo vessels, the first of which they expected to be operating in Bass Strait just next year. So it is pretty clear in terms of those issues.
The minister gave up some of his ideological blinkers when he gave his last contribution. He spoke, again, about the unionists—which is really what is driving this. It seems to me that those opposite have a view that members of the MUA are not worthy of employment and the way that you stop them being employed is to stop there being an Australian shipping industry. That is the logic. The minister spoke about 26 weeks leave in a completely disingenuous way. He knows it is just like a whole range of other fly-in fly-out workers—ships that operate tend to have two sets of crews because when they work they are working on a ship for seven days a week 24 hours a day, literally. So you have one crew on and one crew off. That is the way the industry works. It is just like people who work in offshore oil and gas or people who work away from their home. That is the way the industry works, and the minister is using this in such a disingenuous way, because you have two crews, there are 26 weeks off and they are working 183 days.
It does not work like that. You know that.
The minister does not contemplate the reality of this industry. He spoke about the considerable decline. Indeed, since the Howard government there has been a decline. We addressed those issues. The government has given up on the industry. I would ask the minister to respond to the following questions. Why is it that the phase 'Revitalising Australian Shipping' has been removed from the title of the act? Why has the government deleted 'facilitates the long term growth of the Australian shipping industry' from the act's objectives? Why is the definition of 'Australian nationality' with respect to a ship being deleted from the act? It is being completely deleted as if there were no distinction between the Australian flag and a foreign flag of convenience on the back of a ship. The government seeks, through this legislation, which is really Work Choices on water, to remove the Australian flag from the back of our ships and replace it with the white flag when it comes to Australian jobs.
In the minister's response to the last question he laid out very clearly that he regards that as acceptable because there will be savings somewhere else. That is his view. But he should be honest and say that the government's view is to get rid of the Australian shipping industry because it will assist other industries. If that is the view, then at least say it. It is there in the legislation, as I have outlined in great detail and which I intend to continue to do. But the government needs to respond to this: why is it that a National Party minister—indeed, the leader of the National Party, a political party that has a proud reputation for being, as the name would imply, a nationalist party that will stand up for Australian interests—is completely removing Australian nationality with respect to a ship from the legislation. It has always been there in one form or another. Since Federation it has been there. But this government seeks to remove it from the act.
It was interesting that the shadow minister chose to quote from page 80. He selectively chose one paragraph. Maybe he should read the paragraph before and the paragraph after, which make it clear why stakeholders were concerned about the cost of Australian shipping:
The current Temporary Licence system was seen as a further disincentive to the participation of foreign vessels, due to high compliance costs and operational uncertainty. Temporary Licences were seen as overly inflexible because foreign vessels are currently required to apply for a minimum of five voyages …
When you selectively take one paragraph out of the whole case you do not accurately reflect the arguments that have been put. In relation to the title of the bill, it is quite clear that when Labor put 'Revitalising Australian Shipping' into the title of the bill it did not have that effect. The reality is that you cannot revitalise an industry just by writing it into the name of a bill. The reality is that since this legislation was implemented the number of ships has dropped from 30 to 15. The number of people employed in the industry has dropped.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The number of registered vessels has dropped from 30 to 15. The reality is that the name has done nothing to increase the number of ships. It has actually reduced the number of ships. So we are talking about a working title delivering a working result, delivering an outcome that will result in there being a more competitive Australian economy, an economy that is aided by having capacity to move products around our coast at a rate that is competitive with things that are coming in from other parts of the world. If we want to have a strong Australian industry we need to give it the support that it needs to achieve its objectives. Just putting the word in the title of a bill does not do that. You have to have the will and the effective policies to achieve that objective, and that is what our amending legislation is about.
The figures that the Deputy Prime Minister just used are absolute nonsense. To suggest that that decline has occurred between the previous act coming into practice and today is just not true. The minister did not respond. He spoke about page 80. Page 80 makes it very clear. It says:
The primary driver of higher costs was seen to be high Australian wage costs relative to foreign vessel wage costs.
That is just like the 88 per cent save—as shown in the RIS—being about the difference between Australian wages and foreign wages. That is what is actually there at page 80. But I would ask the minister really specifically—and this comes to the crux of the matter, and he must be able to answer—why he has removed any definition of 'Australian nationality' from the act.
I do not wish to respond. The definition of Australian nationality is in legislation about Australian nationality.
Quite frankly, the failure of the minister to respond says it all.
Legislation about Australian nationality is in legislation about Australian nationality, not in legislation about shipping. Clearly the legislation about Australian nationality applies across all legislation, and you do not have to write these sorts of things separately into every piece of legislation.
The minister just shows ignorance of the legislation with that response. We are not talking about nationality as in citizenship. We are talking about nationality as in where a company is registered, as in whether there should be a distinction between an Australian flag on the back of a ship and a flag of convenience. It is pretty simple. I referred to the act. I asked about the definition of Australian nationality with respect to a ship that has been deleted from the act. The reason it has been deleted is that previously, under the Howard government, under the Menzies government, under the Bruce government and under every government in power prior to this legislation today this parliament has seen fit to draw a distinction between the Australian flag and conditions and a foreign flag and conditions. Why have we done that? It is because governments have understood that it is in our economic, environmental and, importantly, national security interests to have the presence of an Australian flag and to have a merchant fleet.
For goodness sake, have a look at the role the merchant fleet plays in the defence of our nation. That is why we included the Navy as a direct representative in the consultative group that drew up the legislation that I introduced before this House. This is a government that speaks about stopping boats. We did not think that meant stopping having the Australian flag. But that is what it means here. The merchant fleet play a role in that as well. They play a role in safety. They play a role in security. For an island continent, where 99 per cent of our exports travel by sea, the existence of a maritime sector is critical to our national interest. That has to be the starting point for legislation.
That is why this is not just some semantic debate about words. That is why 'revitalising Australian shipping' was in the title. That is why the objectives of the act included 'facilitates long-term growth of the Australian shipping industry'. That has been removed. That is why you have a definition of Australian nationality. I will provide the answer for the minister. You do not need a definition of Australian nationality with respect to a ship if you do not draw any distinction between an Australian flagged ship travelling from Brisbane down to Sydney and a foreign flagged ship, if it is just a free-for-all with no preference, which is what is in this legislation, and where the Australian ship has to compete on the basis of foreign wages being able to be paid. That is the point, Deputy Prime Minister, that I was making. It is not some academic exercise.
I would ask the minister to indicate if any of the following G20 nations open up their coasts to all comers without making a distinction about nationality of ships and flags, as his government proposes to do. The United States does not. Canada does not. Japan does not. The countries in the European Union bloc do not. India does not. Indonesia does not. China does not. That is why I say this is unilateral economic disarmament. None of our competitors do this. The minister, to his credit, understood this in resisting the absurd proposition of Minister Robb to get rid of cabotage when it came to aviation. But he does not seem to understand that it is the same argument here.
The United States, under the Jones Act, not only does not allow goods to be transported around its coast by anything other than a US flagged vessel with US seafarers; the ship has to be built in the United States as well. That is a proposition that has the support of the Democrats and the Republicans. It was supported by Ronald Reagan. It was supported by George Bush Sr and George Bush Jr. It is supported by Barack Obama, President of the United States. A few of the fruitloops in the Tea Party oppose it, but everyone else in mainstream politics in the United States supports it. That is because of the experience of the US in World War II. They understand how important it is for the national interest. That is why, if the Deputy Prime Minister can indicate any nation comparative to ours, any major economy, that says, 'We will allow a free-for-all and get rid of preference around our coast,' I would like him to please tell me where it is.
We speak a lot in this place about trade, bilateral agreements and multilateralism. We speak about equality of opportunity and arrangements. There is no equality of opportunity here. It is simply not possible for Australian flagged ships to turn up in the US, Canada, Japan, the EU, India, Indonesia or China—any of the G20 nations where we have significant trading relationships—and just start doing business on their coasts. There is a reason for that. It is extraordinary that this is being given up.
If the Deputy Prime Minister has some knowledge that some of these countries are about to do this, I would like him to tell me. But I draw his attention to the United States, the land of the free market. It has a very protectionist system. We do not have a protectionist system here. We have a system that says, 'When an Australian ship is available to do a domestic freight task, it should get that work.' Secondly, it says, 'If an Australian ship is not available and a foreign ship does it that is a good thing, but it has to pay Australian wages.' That is what this argument is about, here, and the uncertainty.
The minister said he is serious about Australian jobs. He said he wants jobs created in the Australian shipping industry. What we know from the legislation is that the Australian shipping industry will decline. Eight-eight per cent of the savings are due to the difference in wage costs. We know four ships in Tasmania will remove their Australian flags. That is the expectation. The expectation of the cruise-ship industry is that it will literally disappear, in terms of the Australian flag. It is there in the legislation. This is not something we needed an inquiry on. I ask the minister: what comparative nations—any at all—is this legislation going to be consistent with, or is it the case that it can be seen as unilateral economic disarmament?
I refer to the regulatory impact statement at pages 74 and 75. The following is the preferred option 4, which is in the RIS and is the basis of the bill. It says this about the exclusion of Australian workplace standards for ships in Australia up to six months. It states:
Some foreign ships would continue to be subject to the Fair Work Act under option 4, however the threshold for coverage will be lifted to ships that engage in more than 183 days of coastal trading in a permit year. This policy change acknowledges the concerns of stakeholders that current Fair Work Act coverage is burdensome, while also requiring adherence to Australian wages and conditions for ships engaged in significant Australian coastal trade.
It is extraordinary that because of the nature of these flags of convenience, that tend to be major operations, it could simply replace one ship around the coast with another one at the six-month mark and the clock starts ticking again, enabling it to pay foreign wages. There is nothing in there, beyond that six months continuous work or 183 days in the year. It is an extraordinarily high figure. Even under its own logic, surely the government—if it were fair dinkum at all—would have a figure in there that was not such a free-for-all. That 183 days exposes the weakness in the government's position.
I do not know if the minister wants to respond to that specific argument. I am more than happy to come back, at a later time, if it suits the minister. I provide him with that offer in good faith. I have been trying to go through, very specifically, problems with this legislation. I might move onto the next one while he is giving consideration to that.
The regulatory impact statement, at page 55, says the following, when evaluating constraints and barriers:
In the current global environment with an oversupply of ships, shippers are unlikely to face difficulty in sourcing transport services; however, in the future an increased exposure to global market forces—
And I ask the minister to respond to this—
could result in a situation where Australian shippers are less able to source cheap and reliable domestic sea freight services. Consultation indicated this is a risk the industry is willing to assume in a globalised economy.
This is a problem for the Australian economy as a whole.
The minister has clearly indicated he is prepared to see the Australian shipping industry decline—or disappear—because he thinks that will produce benefits for other industries. But here we have, in the government's own regulatory impact statement, a statement from the government that there could be circumstances whereby Australian shippers—people who want to carry freight around the coast—simply are not able to engage in that trade, thereby representing an extraordinary risk to the economy. It is one of the reasons we have an Australian industry, why you need the Australian flag, when you are an island continent. The consequences of that are quite extraordinary.
The RIS, in the legislation here, essentially says, 'There's a risk there but industry is prepared to cop that.' I am sure there would be some people—Shipping Australia is clearly supportive of this legislation—who are prepared to accept that. For those people who the minister says rely upon shipping services it is quite extraordinary. It goes to issues such as energy security as well. What happens if there isn't a ship available to supply the energy security that Australian industry requires? It seems to me that the reliability risk is a real issue.
I go now to the issue of assumptions on foreign registration. I go to the cost-benefit analysis, which is at page 128. It operates under the following basis for making its assumptions:
An analysis of the ships that operated under a Temporary Licence between July 2012 and June 2014 using Lloyds data indicates that foreign vessels operating in Australian coastal shipping are registered mostly in open registry countries including Panama, Liberia, the Marshall Islands or the Bahamas, or otherwise registered in low-wage countries or countries offering favourable conditions to foreign ship owners …
There it is in black and white on page 128. They are called flag-of-convenience ships because those nations, quite frankly, are prepared to allow the use of their flag on the back of ships that really have nothing to do with those nations. The ships that fly the Liberian flag are not actually ships that arise from the Liberian shipping industry. They are called flag-of-convenience ships because those nations are prepared to allow what I regard as a misuse of their flag—something that the Australian people would never allow any government in this nation to operate. But it makes it very clear in terms of the circumstances of the RIS when it talks of 'favourable conditions to foreign ship owners'. Exactly what does that mean? What that means is the way that workers are treated. What that means is that less tax is being paid into the Australian economy. And the government makes this assumption in its official modelling that is the basis of this legislation. I hope that those who are sitting in their offices—particularly the National Party members who, historically, have been prepared to stand up for Australia—are listening to this. There, in black and white on page 128, are the assumptions that I regard as quite remarkable.
I refer the minister to page 156 of the explanatory memorandum—the cost-benefit analysis. It says the following of the preferred option:
Many of the operators currently operating under the Australian General Register would likely re-flag their vessels in order to compete with the foreign operators who enjoy the benefit of comparatively lower wage rates. Australian seafarer jobs would be adversely affected as Australian operators re-flag from the Australian General Register.
Ship operators are likely to replace Australian seafarers (paid under EA rates) with foreign seafarers (paid under ITF rates). Nevertheless, a portion of the crew may remain Australian due to the world-wide shortage of high-ranking positions.
Can the minister indicate why his official modelling indicates the loss of Australian seafarers' jobs and their replacement with a foreign workforce? What is the assumed size of the Australian major trading fleet following the passage of this legislation—that is, what is the end point that the government sees? Is it zero Australian ships?
I also ask the minister this. As part of shipping reform we had a maritime workforce development forum that worked with the Australian Maritime College at Launceston, with industry, with the unions, with the navy—all were represented on that task force. I do not believe that the minister or the government have considered the implications for the crossover in skills that a domestic Australian maritime sector provides: the people who run our ports; the people who run our harbours; the people who go from the navy to the merchant fleet. There is a real crossover and, in getting rid of, essentially, an industry in the way that it is envisaged, I believe that the government has not given appropriate consideration to that.
There is another issue I would like a response to. The minister made an assertion in response to my comparative analysis in my second reading speech about the way in which the Australian shipping industry has a very good record and the foreign flag-of-convenience industry has not such a good record; he sought to suggest that that was not the case. I have witnessed, and I refer the minister to, the Pasha Bulker incident off the Newcastle coast—one that created a great deal of damage and one which the reports showed certainly could have been avoided had the ship's captain acted in a responsible way. I also refer him to 2009 as cyclone Hamish approached the Queensland coast, when the Pacific Adventurer lost shipping containers overboard that created a huge hole in the hull of the ship and a 60-kilometre oil slick which hit the beaches of the Sunshine Coast—indeed, very close to the minister's electorate. The clean-up bill there was $34 million and, again, the ship had a foreign flag.
About a year later I was the minister when Shen Neng 1 ran aground off Rockhampton. As you are aware, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority do a fantastic job—that is something we can agree on. I flew over the site in an AMSA Dornier aircraft, and you could literally see the channel where the ship should have gone through off the coast and turned. You could see precisely what happened from the air—the ship just kept going. The consequence of that was a hole in the Great Barrier Reef three kilometres long and 250 metres wide.
Just after that I went to New Zealand and looked, along with the New Zealand minister, at the consequences of the disastrous foreign flagged ship that stopped the trade from the major port on the North Island near Auckland for a period of many weeks. AMSA and Australian experts came and assisted in that process. There is something that all of these incidents have in common—they did not have the Australian flag on the back of the ship; they did not have an Australian captain and seafarers who were actually aware of local conditions; they were circumstances that cost a substantial amount of money. The consequences for our environment of these incidents was to be dire indeed
I repeat my offer to the minister to come back and have further debate—if the minister is going to answer these questions, which are very specific, about his legislation. All of my contributions have gone to the detail of the legislation—detail that has not been considered properly by the government. Paul Neville of the National Party, who was one of the architects of this legislation, would be quite shocked by the way in which this legislation is being dealt with. I have one summing up contribution, but if the minister does want to respond to the questions that have been asked now or at a later time, I would ask him to.
I am of the understanding that the shadow minister is only going to make one further contribution. There are a number of issues. Firstly, let me go back to the so-called nationality issue. When he asked the question, I was assuming that he was talking in normal terms about what a person's nationality was. I assume, following his subsequent statement, that he was talking about the nationality of the ship. That is dealt with in section 14 of the Navigation Act 2012. That definition applies in all circumstances, including where references are made to matters of that nature in this legislation.
Regarding the question about national interest and the importance of having Australian shipping, I referred to this issue in my opening remarks some hours ago, and I have referred to it subsequently. I agree very strongly. I said similar words to the shadow minister in relation to the importance of Australia having skilled maritime personnel who are able to act as pilots through the Great Barrier Reef and some of the narrow channels that we have around the country, and to be our tug crews and provide maritime services to our nation into the future. I agree that we want more people who have maritime skills in this country. I recognise that there are crossovers of skills from the Navy to the merchant fleet, but also from the sort of people who become our pilots who have usually been captains on vessels and have had some experience around our sea lanes. For that reason it is important that we have a strong and viable shipping industry. I do not think that there is a philosophical difference between the opposition and ourselves on that point. The difference is how we get there. My concerns are that the current arrangements have not worked, and we need to therefore find a better way of dealing with things.
The second issue which he raised concerned the importance of having Australian ships to supply our markets, and he particularly made reference to fuel. I would remind him of my remarks right at the beginning when I quoted from a number of people who raised this very point, and the point that the current arrangements are not serving that objective. Cristal Mining said in their submission to the Senate committee:
The Act, in its current form, puts Australian industry at risk of operational shut downs and possible job losses.
The shadow minister was referring particularly to the petroleum industry. The Australian Institute of Petroleum, who ought to have some authority in the field, said:
The current cumbersome and inflexible regulations impede the efficient operation of domestic refineries and petroleum supply chains around Australia, do not facilitate liquid fuel supply security, and do not advance the objectives of the coastal trading legislation or the local shipping industry.
Here you have people who are directly involved with the supply of petroleum around the country saying the current system is not working, and therefore we have to do better. Fortunately, our waterfront has been relatively peaceful industrially, but there are people around who can remember when it was not like that, and I am not sure that they would have regarded it as being a particularly desirable option to only have Australian ships being able to bring petroleum to this country. We have sometimes needed to have other vessels because of the fact that local people did not want to do the job at the time.
In my remarks, I also refer to the question of the deficiency rate on ships. The shadow minister misquoted me somewhat. I never suggested that foreign ships were better than Australian ships—some will be good and some will be not so good just as some Australian ships are good and some are not so good. The point that I made—an undeniable statistical fact—was that in 2014 the AMSA Port State Control statistics show that the deficiency rate on Australian ships was higher than the deficiency rate on foreign flagged ships. That is probably a coincidence—I sincerely hope that is the case. If not, we have an issue that we really have to seriously address—if there is a systemic problem. I suspect that it was something of a statistical abnormality, but the point that is made by those statistics is that there is no evidence to suggest that foreign flagged vessels have more deficiencies than Australian flagged vessels.
In relation to the Shen Neng, I referred to that also in my earlier remarks and made the observation that that was on an international voyage, not a coastal voyage, and this legislation is not going to affect the international vessels undertaking a voyage of that nature. So, while the case is interesting and important and demonstrates to us why we need to have a high standard of port state control, it does not of itself prove that foreign vessels operating around the Australian shore are going to make any real difference. That is a matter of how effective our port state control is, and certainly the safety and the proper operation of our shipping industry is a key objective of this legislation.
In relation to the wages that are paid, it was the previous government that introduced the modern award part B into the legislation, and we are picking up that system and therefore using the same conditions, pay and arrangements that the previous government thought were acceptable when they introduced that legislation into the parliament. Of course, underpinning all of this is the Maritime Labour Convention, which puts in place minimum standards. I accept that Australian standards are higher than the minimum standards that are laid down by the International Labour Organization member states, but I would also remind you that Paddy Crumlin has been president of that organisation and seemed to be satisfied that those sorts of standards were reasonable for international mariners at that time. I am not advocating that those would be the wage levels that we would set for the workers in Australia, but the reality is that there are some safeguards in place.
Our regulator has proved itself to be efficient and competent in dealing with any vessel that is deficient. When one is hauled up, the union usually have a story about it in the paper the next day, and so the public are well and truly aware when there are foreign vessels in our waters that do not meet appropriate standards. I for one will not stand for vessels that are a danger to our environment or do not provide appropriate working conditions for those on board.
Let me sum up and make it clear where the government's position is. The reality is that Australia as a country makes its own laws, and what has been effective in some places is not effective in other places. What is absolutely clear is that the current arrangements are not working and we need do something better in the future. The shadow minister did indicate a willingness to consider some amendments and improvements to the bill.
Honourable members interjecting—
Well, I am becoming less persuaded about that as the hours go by, but nonetheless I am aware of the fact that this will be an issue that will be dealt with in the Senate. We believe that the fundamental thrust of the legislation is sound. We want more ships, not fewer ships. We want more Australian mariners, not fewer Australian mariners. We want more profitable Australian industries, not less profitable Australian industries. We do not want industries closing in this country and having their products replaced by imported products because the cost of shipping in this country is uncompetitive. We want an industry that works and works well, and the intention of these amendments to the legislation is to achieve those objectives.
First, in response to the definition of Australian nationality, this is what it actually says on page 8 of the legislation:
Item 5 repeals the definitions of acceptable tolerance limits and Australian nationality in subsection 6(1). The new coastal shipping permit … provides a vessel with unrestricted access to coastal shipping, which means the definition of acceptable tolerance limits is no longer required. The definition of Australian nationality is not required as no provisions in the Act refer to Australian nationality.
It is there. It is a free-for-all. There is no limit. Previously you had to define 'acceptable tolerance limits'. You had to define the access that foreign ships had on the coast, because they were restricted. Now what it says is that it is a free for all. You get a permit, you can do what you like and you can pay foreign wage rates. That is what it says. The minister says, 'We want to see more seafarers or more Australian shipping,' but we have quoted very clearly from his own bill. It says:
Australian seafarer jobs would be adversely affected as Australian operators re-flag from the Australian General Register.
Ship operators are likely to replace Australian seafarers … with foreign seafarers …
So the register changes the flag on the back of the ship and the workers change. That is what the legislation says will be the consequence of it.
So do not come in and say, 'We don't want what the act says will happen, but vote for it.' That is absurd. It defies common sense. That is why we are opposed to this legislation. That is why I have said in good faith—and I do so again publicly to the minister—that, if there are improvements to be made, by all means we are prepared to consider them. We fixed the Qantas act, as Alan Joyce reminded the National Press Club today, by amending the legislation in the Senate, and the government responded practically by agreeing with Labor's position, and we got it done in the national interest. This minister did the right thing by opposing Andrew Robb's absurd attack on aviation cabotage, which would have meant the Australian carriers, Qantas and Virgin, departing northern Australia. That is what they said would happen. That is why this minister opposed it. He stood up to his cabinet colleague, and he should stand up for Australian jobs and industry on this, because the Australian shipping sector is saying what will happen, in terms of Maritime Industry Australia Ltd
The sector is saying what will happen. The cruise ship industry is saying what will happen. The legislation itself says what will happen, in the RIS and in the explanatory memorandum. It says that four ships that currently operate from the Tasmanian coast will disappear as Australian flagged ships. It says that, so do not be surprised when it happens. That is why we are opposed to this legislation.
This is Work Choices on water, because it is ideological. According to the legislation, 88 per cent of the savings is the difference between Australian wages and foreign wages. That is what it says in the legislation. We reject it because it is unilateral economic disarmament. I asked the minister very clearly: 'Which of the G20 nations—the United States, the European Union, Indonesia, China, India, Japan—would allow this sort of policy?' The answer to that is: none of them, because they all understand their national interests, and so we should. That is why this minister should withdraw this legislation. That is why the Senate should vote this legislation down, and they should start again with proper consultation. The change of leadership in the government should provide Prime Minister Turnbull with an opportunity to have a common-sense solution. When you have a policy that is opposed by the entire sector (Extension of time granted) and there has not been proper consultation, the legislation should be opposed.
I have very specifically gone through the problems in the legislation, in the explanatory memorandum, in the RIS and in the bill itself before the parliament. I have very clearly indicated that there is a problem with regard to the consequences, and not just from the evidence of the Senate legislation committee. The consequences were very clear from evidence from people like Mr Bill Milby. I have gone through what the act itself says. I have been in this place a long time—
You have!
and I will be here for a long time yet. I notice that the member for Berowra is up there. He has been here for more than double the time I have been here. When Work Choices was carried, we pointed out that it was ideological legislation and that it would cause great damage to the national economy. This legislation is just ideology before common-sense and that is why it should be opposed.
The question is that the bill be agreed to.
Can I just indicate that the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that he has a meeting and, out of deference to him, rather than any indication that the opposition is anything other than totally opposed to this legislation, we will not call a division at this time.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I thank the member for Grayndler and the minister in attendance for allowing me to speak now. I rise to support the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment (Forum on Food Regulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Amendments have been made to this bill by the member for Throsby. There is a sense of deja vu about the way that they have approached what is typical in terms of an outdated view with respect to governance and government appointed bodies. It relies on boards being filled by people based on their positions as opposed to their skill and expertise. From that point of view, the government will not be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Throsby. The decision to change the nomination process for the FSANZ board was not a decision of the minister. This is a very important point. It was a decision of the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, which consists of ministers from Victoria, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, South Australia, ACT, Queensland, Western Australia, my home state of Tasmania, the Commonwealth of Australia, and New Zealand.
The member for Throsby might like to reflect on the fact that his Labor colleagues, South Australian minister Jack Snelling, ACT minister Simon Corbell, and Victorian minister Jill Hennessy agreed—not disagreed, but agreed—with the proposed changes. Rather than playing politics with this bill, maybe he should speak to his state colleagues, because I believe that Australians are simply sick of this sort of behaviour. They have had enough of this petty politicking, where there will be some advantage gained or the perception that some advantage will be gained by such activities.
Any changes to this legislation not agreed to by the forum would breach our international obligations under the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of New Zealand, commonly known as the food treaty, concerning a joint food standards system. To date, throughout the process of drafting this bill New Zealand has been consulted and they have agreed to the changes. Therefore, the actions of those on the other side, and in particular the member for Throsby, are nothing more than grandstanding and playing politics on an issue that is actually very important. I will speak further about why it is important to my state of Tasmania.
In regard to Mr Jones's comments around the Health Star Rating, under the leadership of this government we have so far had 54 companies sign up to the Health Star Rating, and there are over 1,500 products already on the shelves. Just this week we have seen two major companies, Kelloggs and Nestle, reformulate their food because of this government's voluntary scheme. Kelloggs reformulated their recipe for Nutri-Grain—I will not be telling my boys that, because they are keen partakers of it—to go from 2 stars to 4 stars. Nestle reformulated 10 of its snacks and muesli bars, reducing salt by 63 per cent, sugar by 32 per cent and fat by 16 per cent.
Mr Jones also misses the point that phase 2 of the education campaign for the Health Star Rating system ran from June to August and used print, online and out-of-home advertising to continue to raise consumer awareness of the Health Star Rating system and to visually reinforce the campaign message of comparing similarly packaged products. Data suggests that 47 per cent of people are highly likely to use the HSR on a regular basis, which is up from 40 per cent in April 2015. Of those who have seen any of the advertising, almost 40 per cent state that they have used the HSR in-store. Thirty per cent have tried to eat healthier. If there is one thing this was meant to do, it was to change behaviour. On the evidence before us that seems to be occurring.
I am particularly pleased to speak on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment (Forum on Food Regulation and Other Measures) Bill, and the amendments. The bill amends the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, the FSANZ Act, to reflect the change of name of the former Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council to the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, and makes amendments relating to the compositional requirements and the appointment processes of the FSANZ board, to which I have alluded, and responded to the amendments that were made by the member for Throsby. It makes other amendments to improve the clarity and operation of this important legislation.
This debate also gives me an opportunity to examine the history of FSANZ's dealings with the application for approval of industrial hemp to be grown for food in Australia. I particularly want to explore why this approval has still not been granted, nearly a decade after the application was first made. It appears to be a case of bureaucratic bungling, some might say—I am on the record publicly as having said that before—which is holding up development of a much needed viable new crop for farmers, like those in my rural and regional electorate of Lyons, in Tasmania. I first raised the subject of industrial hemp not long after being elected to this place. There has been an unacceptably long delay nationally in deciding whether to legalise its cultivation for human consumption. I have made public statements since that time, and as recently as January/February this year, after the forum had met in New Zealand. At that stage producers in my state, in particular, but also in other Australian states and in New Zealand had been campaigning for the development of this industry for more than a decade.
Industrial hemp is already cultivated in Australia, as opposed to medicinal cannabis, just to make that point clear. Industrial hemp is already cultivated in Australia and New Zealand under strict licensing arrangements. It is used to make fibre, textiles, paper and building materials. Members in this place would understand that Tasmania is also the producer of over 40 per cent of the world's legal opiates. From a regulatory point of view, in terms of the dangers that those two products present, I can assure the House that the opiates that are grown in Tasmania are managed very well and are far more dangerous than industrial hemp, which contains very little, if any, active ingredients. The removal of prohibitions on the production of hemp seed and oil products would provide farmers with a greater range of viable markets for a crop that we have known for years grows exceptionally well in the southern regions of Australia and New Zealand.
It would also provide the necessary encouragement to more farmers, who always on the lookout for new opportunities to help make ends meet, to consider growing industrial hemp commercially. I am told that Australia is one of only two countries in the world now who still prohibit the growing of industrial hemp for food consumption. This is against the national backing of the science community and the best advice from leading hemp growers in countries such as Canada. Canada allows the sale and consumption of hemp foods and has done for many years. A licence is required to possess hemp seed or grain to conduct activities such as cultivating, processing, pressing for oil, rendering hemp seed or grain non-viable, importing, exporting and selling—which I think we regard as perfectly reasonable. Food containing hemp is allowed to be sold and consumed in the Netherlands. Italy allows hemp based foods. Austria, Belgium and Germany permit the sale and consumption of hemp foods, hemp oils and so forth. Hemp is cultivated in Canada, as I mentioned, China, Thailand and a number of European countries, in particular France, Germany, Romania and the UK. The levels of THC are negligible at the very most. Canada has allowed the whole range of hemp production from fibre to seeds, including export and import, since 1998.
Back in Australia, FSANZ itself says, in research carried out on its behalf into low-THC hemp as a food, that it has no safety concerns with regard to the consumption of hemp foods. Its concerns are more with the costs of regulation. As I understand it, they related to the decision that came out of the forum in New Zealand around law and order issues, particularly in relation to roadside drug testing. But I make the point again that this is not cannabis; this is industrial hemp that has nil or very, very low levels of THC. The hold-up in Australia and New Zealand joining the rest of the world and legalising the cultivation of hemp for human consumption needs to be addressed by our state and federal health ministers and their bureaucrats.
Last year, I wrote to all the states' health ministers, the responsible federal minister at the time and the Prime Minister, urging them to push for an earlier resolution to this matter than the scheduled next meeting of FSANZ, which was January this year. That was not possible, but I was surprised and, of course, again disappointed that the scheduled January meeting again refused to allow hemp to be grown as a food in Australia and New Zealand. The regulatory body had previously called for more evidence supporting the legalisation of hemp for food consumption as its reason for delaying a positive decision. Concerns were again raised by several FSANZ members that marketing of hemp as a food might send a confused message to consumers about the acceptability and safety of cannabis. It sounds like bureaucratic bungling to me. I found this astounding. The body has received vast amounts of information over many, many years, including scientific evidence about the make-up of the category of hemp to be grown as food, which absolutely refutes any such suggestion. Mr Phil Reader—it is not the first time I have mentioned him in this place—a Tasmanian farmer at Bishopsbourne in my electorate of Lyons, has answered all these questions over and again in the many years that he and his colleagues, such as Pip and Tim Schmidt from Red Hills, on the western side of Deloraine, have been campaigning on this issue.
As I said earlier, many countries around the world have been growing hemp as a food for years and have had no problems. The tragic irony is that we can buy these imported food products here in Australia but cannot buy Australian grown equivalents. Against all this evidence, I can only conclude that this process has been caught up within the department. I am sure we can find a way through.
That is why I support the amendments proposed in the bill as it was moved. I encourage those on the other side: playing politics on this issue is not the point of this and, as I say, frankly, Australians are sick of this. This bill brings about clarity to the operation of FSANZ regulation. It is intended to improve regulatory efficiency and provide greater clarification for business and FSANZ by removing uncertainty and improving consistency in the way in which the regulatory body outlines procedures for consideration of food regulatory measures. That can only help speed up the decision on growing industrial hemp for food consumption that Phil Reader and others have been campaigning for for over a decade.
The hypocrisy of the Labor Party in moving this amendment to the second reading motion is typical of their outdated view on governance, which relies on boards being filled with people based on their positions as opposed to boards appointed based on skills and expertise. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The decision to change the nomination process for the FSANZ board was not a decision of the minister; it was a decision of the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, which consists of ministers from Victoria, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Commonwealth and New Zealand. The member for Throsby might like to reflect on the fact that his Labor colleagues South Australian minister Jack Snelling, ACT minister Simon Corbell and the Victorian minister Jill Hennessy agreed with the proposed changes. Rather than playing politics with this bill, maybe he should speak to his Labor colleagues.
Any changes to this legislation not agreed to by the forum would breach our international obligations with the New Zealand government under the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand concerning a Joint Food Standards System—the food treaty. To date, New Zealand has been consulted and has agreed to changes throughout the process of the drafting of this bill. Again, we see Labor attempting to block this bill even though their Labor state and territory colleagues agreed that the change needed to happen.
In regard to Mr Jones's comments surrounding the Health Star Rating, under the leadership of this government so far we have 54 companies signed up to HSR and over 1,500 products on the shelves. Just this week we have seen two major companies—Kellogg's and Nestle—reformulating their food because of this government's voluntary scheme. Kellogg's reformulated their recipe for Nutri-Grain to go from two stars to four stars. Nestle reformulated 10 of its snack and muesli bars, reducing salt by 63 per cent, sugar by 32 per cent and fat by 16 per cent.
I also make the point to Mr Jones that phase 2 of the education campaign for the Health Star Rating system ran from June to August and used print, online and out-of-home advertising to continue to raise consumer awareness of the HSR system and visually reinforce the campaign message of comparing similarly packaged products. Data suggests that 47 per cent of people are now highly likely to use the HSR on a regular basis, which is up from 40 per cent in April 2015. Of those who have seen any of the advertising, 37 per cent state they have used the HSR in stores and 30 per cent have tried to eat more healthily. Does this seem like the government is trying to undermine the Health Star Rating system? On the contrary, we are successfully implementing and promoting it.
I thank members for their contribution to the debate.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.
(2) Schedule 2, page 21 (line 1) to page 26 (line 13), omit the Schedule.
Labor's amendments, modest but important, delete the proposed changes within the bill to the composition of the board. If the amendments are accepted, the board will continue in its current composition—finely balanced and independent. If you want a reason why it is necessary to retain the independence of the board, you need look no further than the contribution from the member for Lyons. He was passionate but he was ill informed. He criticised the food standards authority, and the unknown bureaucrats who work within the organisation, for knocking off his passionate support—and that of the people he presumably represents—for cannabis which is produced as a food product. I can inform the member for Lyons and the House that the board of FSANZ, and indeed the expert bodies, have referred to the ministerial council propositions which would authorise the production and sale of cannabis for food products within Australia. It was the ministerial council which knocked off this proposal. And that in a nutshell demonstrates the importance of having a proper tension between experts and elected politicians who sit on the ministerial council as opposed to the scientists, the health experts and the industry experts who sit on the board. That demonstrates in a nutshell why that is necessary, because were it not for the scientific expertise and the health expertise of the people on the board that proposition would never have got to the ministerial council. It would have been killed before it got there. It proves in a nutshell why we need to have independent expertise across a range of areas not subject to the appointment and discretion of the minister, whoever he or she may be from day to day. We argue that the current arrangements are serving us well.
The assistant minister argues that somehow in opposing the amendments before the House we will do some damage to our relations with the states and our friends in New Zealand. Nothing could be further from the truth. I say this: we have worked very cooperatively with the Assistant Minister for Health on most matters that have come before this House, and I hope that we are able to do that into the future as well. As an alternative government and when in government, we have also worked cooperatively with state and territory members to the intergovernmental agreement and with New Zealand and with our counterparts on the ministerial council. But we are a sovereign parliament. For the assistant minister to stand there and somehow threaten us and say that we are not entitled to represent our democratic rights and speak against and vote against a proposition that comes before this House when we believe that it is not in the public interest, frankly, is breathtaking.
I say to those members on that side of the House and I say to all government members: do the simple thing. We support 50 per cent of what you are proposing in his legislation. If you agree to our amendments, it will sail through this place, it will sail through the other place and the changes that you propose and claim you really need will be passed into law. But in no contribution that we have heard in the House—not the contribution from the member for Lyons, not the contribution from the minister in her second reading speech, not the contribution from my good friend the parliamentary secretary—have we seen a justification for the provisions that we object to.
What is the evil that they are attempting to address through this legislation? We are as yet ignorant of the malady that they are attempting to redress. We argue that the current provisions have served us well, they should remain settled, and if the government agree to our amendments the bill will sail through this House and the other place and we can get on with the important business of protecting Australians and the food that they eat.
I find it interesting that the member for Throsby's proposition that where states and territories nominate from within their jurisdictions, including New Zealand and those others that I referred to, it is being seen as an appointment by the minister. The jurisdictions, in putting forward membership, select from their systems people with the expertise and knowledge to fulfil the roles required on the board. The minister approves the names that come forward. Minister Ley neither selects them nor interferes with the process that has been established and agreed to. I find it astounding that the member for Throsby thinks that when you have states and territories, the New Zealand government, the Commonwealth and the ministers who represent each of those jurisdictions putting names forward it is interfering with a sovereign process that he refers to in respect of this chamber. That is far from the fact. His amendments disregard each of the jurisdictions who in their own sovereign right have put forward names that they want considered to represent them in all of the deliberations. The protections that he refers to that are diminished by his supposition in fact do not occur. Having been a senior bureaucrat who participated in the FSANZ process out of New South Wales, I know that all of the appointments came at the directions of the relevant agencies and they were respected and considered for both their knowledge and their capacity to contribute to the debates on food security and their brief in respect of the terms that they operate under.
So I challenge the member for Throsby as to what his true purpose is—why is it that he seeks to challenge his Labor colleagues in the states where there are Labor governments and to refute the selection of those they nominate. I think the member for Throsby should give due consideration to the sovereignty of each of the jurisdictions. Again, in their wisdom, they have provided over the years outstanding members to FSANZ and in all of their deliberations I know that they have considered all of the detail required. If they need expertise or expert advice then they seek it from within their jurisdictions and include that advice in all considerations. There is no way that the government will consider what the member for Throsby and those on the other side are proposing, so the amendments that he is putting forward are not supported and are contrary to his own colleagues in the state and territory jurisdictions.
They're not bound by them.
Whilst you make the comment that they are not bound by them, we respect the integrity of the process—we respect the integrity of the way in which the body itself has come forward with the advice to the minister as to the changes that are required. I think we should respect that integrity because even in terms of the agreement between Australia and New Zealand there is considerable weight given to that agreement and in respect of consideration to even New Zealand's nominees he again seems to question the integrity of their process of appointing the relevant people. I understand that there are other bodies that he might think should be considered in the context of what he is proposing, but the forum will have the opportunity to call upon expert advice, and they will have the opportunity of linking with the relevant government agencies and seeking from them their input into the process. This also enables streamlining so that our food security and the issues the member for Throsby raises are reflected on and deliberated upon by those who have been selected within their jurisdictions. His amendments do not really meet the expectations of the advice we have been given and nor do they reflect the jurisdictions that are part of this process. I hope that he will reconsider his proposition and come on board and support the third reading of the bill.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (eHealth) Bill 2015. From the outset, I want to put on record Labor's strong support for eHealth and, in particular, the personally controlled electronic health record. To quote my colleague, the member the Sydney, when she was the Minister for Health, Labor:
… sees eHealth as a natural extension of our universal health system, Medicare.
Done properly, with the wholehearted support of state and federal governments, the health sector and patients, eHealth holds out the promise of great improvements in the quality of health care by reducing duplication, realising efficiencies and reducing medical errors. It has been estimated that as many as one in six of all medical errors are due to inadequate patient information, and almost one-third of unplanned hospital admissions in patients over 75 years of age are associated with medication mistakes. Electronic health records will not magically eliminate errors, but they do have the potential to dramatically reduce these often tragic mistakes and also save the health system billions of dollars.
As many as one in six pathology and diagnostic tests in hospitals are unnecessary duplicates. Even where there is no mistake or duplication, just the lack of information sharing and care management for chronic disease sufferers is estimated to costs the healthcare system up to $1.5 billion a year. A recent report published by Booz and Company on global e-health investment found that e-health programs could cut healthcare spending by three per cent annually, saving at least $7.6 billion in 2020 alone. Commitment to a full eHealth program now could help save an estimated 5,000 lives annually once the system is fully operational. The benefits that can flow from improving patients' understanding and appreciation of their own health cannot be underestimated, with the benefits from the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records program forecast to reach $11.5 billion over the 15 years from 2010 to 2025.
The real question, therefore, about eHealth is not why we are doing this now but why it took so long—and why, once these benefits were fully appreciated, we had the coalition, when they were in opposition, remaining so openly hostile and so determined to stall its rollout. Frankly, like all of the great reforms in health, it took a Labor government to introduce electronic health in 2012, after many years of planning. I have been involved in health policy for a long time and I think we have been talking about an electronic health record in some form or another for well over 25 to 30 years in this country. Labor therefore welcomes much of what is being proposed in the legislation which, on the face of it, has the potential, after two years of neglect under this government, to finally advance the cause of electronic health records once more.
Be in no doubt that these are reforms that are very hard to implement. They are not easy. It is very easy to criticise from the sidelines. It is very easy to use something for a political headline, as those opposite did around electronic health when they were in opposition. It is very easy to do that. But these reforms are incredibly hard to implement. It took equivalent healthcare systems some 15 years to actually embed those reforms into their systems and to get it right. It is complex architecture that is made even more complicated here in this country because of the very nature of the way in which our health system has evolved and developed.
Whilst we are very pleased about the measures in this bill, I do have to say that this bill represents almost two years of wasted opportunities from a government that was, frankly, openly hostile in opposition to electronic health records. Until this point, the government had done very little in electronic health except commission a review. They cut some $215 million from the program in this year's budget. The review, led by the Executive Director of UnitingCare Health, Richard Royle, found that e-health records were a piece of critical national infrastructure and made a number of sensible recommendations that were delivered to the government in December 2013. In opposition, the coalition had been openly critical of eHealth and suggested it would scrap it. So this was clearly not the outcome the government was looking for, which might explain why it took some six months to make the findings of the electronic health record review public.
Now, more than a year after that review reported to government, I note this bill now represents, finally, the government's belated response to the review. I welcome the minister's acknowledgment in her second reading speech that the review found 'overwhelming support to continue implementing a national and consistent shared electronic health record system for all Australians'. It is critical architecture for health reform, and I am very proud that it was a Labor government that put that architecture in place. It is architecture that, as I said, is incredibly complex and it has taken some 15 years in other countries to get it right and embed it in their systems. Not having ever formally responded to this review, the bill the government has brought before the parliament is a pretty weak response, especially when one considers that the government has cut $215 million from the funds allocated for the operation of the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record.
In terms of the specifics of the bill, it changes the name from Labor's Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record to the myHealth Record. This is a recommendation of the Royle Review that Labor is happy to support, picking up as it does our development of the MyHospitals and My School websites, which have been overwhelmingly welcomed by people across communities. According to the minister, the bill also includes a number of changes to improve the usability of the system and the clinical content available in the system for individuals and healthcare providers. On the face of it, these are sensible changes that Labor does not oppose, so long as they are made with proper rigour to ensure the protection of patients' personal information.
In addition to these changes, the bill makes a number of changes to the governance arrangements and the system's usability. The bill also increases the range of enforcement and penalty provisions available for intentional or deliberate misuse and introduces criminal penalties.
The most significant change is the move to increase the number of electronic health records by moving to an opt-out system where all Australians will be given electronic health records unless they specifically choose not to have one. Sensibly, the government has accepted the recommendation to commence this process through trials, and I welcome the minster's commitment that in areas where opt-out trials are being undertaken there will be extensive communication 'to allow individuals to make an informed decision about whether or not to opt out'. This is important not only to ensure that this move is successful; it is also an opportunity to better inform people generally about the value of eHealth records, what information they can hold and how they can best be utilised. Often our experience—and this is also the experience of other countries—is that it is consumers who drive reform. They are driving the reforms here because they are demanding that their health care be better integrated and they are demanding their healthcare providers have at their fingertips the information that they need to make sure they provide proper health care.
I note that the bill provides the ability for the government to, in consultation with the states and territories, extend opt-out arrangements nationally if the trials provide evidence that an opt-out system is a better approach for improving participation in the myHealth Record system. Beyond this consultation, the bill does not require the parliament to consider any change that would see a national opt-out system. To some extent this is academic because, from Labor's perspective, properly resourcing the myHealth Record system and providing the proper incentives for its take-up are more important than whether the system is opt in or opt out. At the end of the day, it is about embedding it within our healthcare system, embedding it within providers' practices and making it a natural extension of what they do and should be doing every single day. That is going to make the difference as to whether the myHealth Record and its very important architecture is successful or not.
I want to signal that Labor will not be making a detailed amendment to the bill to provide for a requirement that the parliament considers further extension of the opt-out system. We will take on good faith from the government that the outcomes of the trials will be properly communicated and that, if the evidence provides that a national opt-out system is a better approach, this evidence will be presented in a transparent way. It think it is in the interests of the entire health sector that that is done and shows what needs to be done and why. It would also be of value for the government, sooner rather than later, to announce the extent of these trials, what populations are being captured and which sites it has under consideration.
I understand the government has already commissioned the development of a training program. I understand that a date for the rollout of that is being pushed pretty hard. I suspect the government has some other announcements it wants to make in this space. I would warn, in that instance, there have been a couple of media releases out today—from doctors' groups and a few blogs that are going around—that, in this space, this is very difficult. I would not be rushing things just for the sake of making announcements or getting things done to be seen to be doing things. It is important you be a little careful in how you go about doing it.
In terms of Labor's record, more than a million Australians had a personally controlled electronic health record when Labor was last in government. A lot of that was being driven by really great work that Medicare Locals were doing in getting people to sign up and in promoting the electronic health record. They did undertake very substantial training for general practitioners. Unfortunately, with two years of it being in hiatus there is now the need for a new training program to be rolled out, in some way, across the country. I welcome the fact that this number continues to rise. This is principally because of Labor's work because, as we know, the government has done very little in that two-year period.
I note that since Labor introduced this important reform there are now more than 2.4 million Australians with a personally controlled electronic health record, with 3,261 specialist letters having been uploaded, 5,260 general practices having registered and more than 1.6 million prescriptions uploaded to the system. In 2010, Labor allocated $467 million over two years for the electronic health record, one of the key building blocks of Labor's National Health and Hospitals Network reforms.
The investment provided for the summaries of patients' health information, including medications and immunisations and medical test results; secure access for patients and health-care providers to their e-health records via the internet, regardless of their physical location; rigorous governance and oversight to maintain privacy; and funding to health-care providers to comply with the national standards, and for the planning and core national infrastructure required to use the national eHealth records system.
In addition to this, Labor introduced an eHealth Practice Incentive Payment to encourage the take up of the electronic health records. We knew at the time that being able to get doctors to embed this into their practices would be the critical part of it. I note that the government has released a discussion paper as part of a consultation process to revise the current practice-incentive payment e-health incentive. These changes have been criticised by the president of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Professor Frank Jones, a man I have a great deal of respect for.
Labor will have a close look at the college's critique of the changes. I will say, however, that one of the challenges in getting meaningful information into electronic health records and increasing their take-up is getting GPs actively engaged in the program. It is important to look at the college's critique, but some of the proposals are ones that came to us, at the time, around larger practice-incentive payments, specialised incentive payments, MBS items.
It is simply not practical on the scale that we are talking about for that to occur, and I would be surprised if the government is able to do that. We really need doctors and others to be onboard. We are not, I suspect, as a country going to be in a position to pay for every single upload of every single piece of data required to do the work of an electronic health record. We will look at the college's critique but Labor, certainly, will not stand in the way of sensible changes the government is looking at to encourage more GPs to engage in the program.
The existing eHealth practice incentive payment was developed in consultation with the National eHealth Transition Authority and assists practices to improve administration processes and the quality of care provided to patients. Over the time Labor was in government, a number of other improvements were made to the system.
In 2013 the member for Sydney, when she was the Minister for Health, expanded what information the personally controlled electronic health record could hold. This was done to reduce duplication and improve the efficiency of Australia's health system by including a summary of the patient's important medical history; a list of medications prescribed and dispensed; allergy information; childhood immunisation records; child health and development information; hospital discharge reports; organ donor status; advanced care planning details; summaries of individual patient-health events; Medicare and PBS claims data; and private notes patients make about their own health. In 2013 Labor made an additional investment to ensure pathology and diagnostic imaging results could be included in a patient's e-health record. I know there are many allied health practitioners who are also very keen to participate, in their capacity, and to contribute to the e-health record.
In early June 2013 the member for Sydney also launched the child eHealth record mobile app or 'my child's eHealth record', which gives parents more options for keeping up-to-date information about their child's health, growth and development. This was the first app of its type and I am proud to say it was developed in Australia. In particular, it allows for parents to add all that crucial information in the blue book to the child development part of their child's eHealth record. These include height and weight, head circumference, reminders about immunisations and child-health checks as well as observations by parents about their child's personal growth and development and achievements.
I do want to put on record Labor's position that any changes in the future must ensure that patients can continue to choose to add health information to their eHealth record and retain some control over it. People must be able to add information like emergency contact details, the location of advance-care directions and other potentially life-saving information—like allergies and medication—to their personally controlled electronic health record. People must also be able to nominate a carer or family member to manage their eHealth record for them.
Being personally controlled allows people some control over what is in their record, including Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data, and what a health-care provider can view or access. Again, Labor will not stand in the way of sensible changes based on independent advice and being informed by trials on how this system should best operate.
I also note that these bills make changes to the Copyright Act. Rather than continuing with provisions in existing legislation that allow existing providers to 'use, reproduce, copy, modify, adapt, publish and communicate' health records they upload for the purposes of providing health care and allow the system operator to sublicense other health-care provider organisations, the government is making changes to the Copyright Act that will specify that work will not be infringed when this is done.
Given the time, the Speaker probably wishes to interrupt the debate here. I obviously seek leave to continue my remarks at another time.
I thank the member for Ballarat. She will have the opportunity to continue her remarks at another time.
Debate interrupted.
On 4 September the people of Newcastle woke to the headline 'Toxicity warning around air base'. This was shocking news to many in my community, including me. Investigations undertaken by the Department of Defence had uncovered soil and groundwater contamination on RAAF Base Williamtown and surrounding off-site areas. As more information emerged we learnt that, despite the Department of Defence, New South Wales Environment Protection Authority and Port Stephens Council all being aware of the contamination for a number of years, the community had until now been left in the dark.
The chemicals in question—perfluorooctane sulfonate, known as PFOS, and perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA—were components of firefighting foam previously used on the base for firefighting and fire training purposes. They are classified as emerging contaminants—namely chemicals or materials that are characterised by a perceived, potential or real threat to human health or the environment. In response to the headline news of contamination, local fisheries were shut and the community was advised not to consume eggs, milk, fish and prawns from the area, or to drink water from the non-town water sources. The residents of Williamtown and surrounds, including RAAF base personnel, have many, many questions but very few answers. Their legitimate concerns about the impact of this contamination on their health, the health of their children and animals and the ongoing safety of their water supply is understandable.
Beyond these immediate and valid health concerns, local businesses are being pushed to the brink, with some undergoing their second month of being unable to earn an income. Their mortgage stress is very real.
As a community we understand that not all of the answers to our questions about health and safety are available today, but we do expect that the relevant government departments and agencies work together, and that everything is being done to help alleviate the very real anxiety being experienced by residents. To date this has not occurred. I have brought the concerns of the community to the attention of the defence minister and the environment minister and have continued to update and share with them the ongoing concerns and frustrations of residents as I have become aware of new and emerging issues raised at local forums and community meetings that I have hosted or through direct contact with those affected who have shared their personal stories with me.
Promises have been made by officials that communication will improve, that drinking water will be delivered, that adequate testing will be undertaken and that compensation would be made available to affected businesses and residents. But the lived reality is that none of this is occurring fast enough, or indeed at all, and there is a general lack of understanding and empathy for the affected community. It has now been nearly six weeks since the news of the contamination broke, and residents are increasingly frustrated by the lack of clarity and the uncertainty ahead. The fact that we now have two 'red zones' of contamination being investigated—with distinctly different boundaries, depending on whether you are using the Defence or New South Wales EPA data—is indicative of the confused approach that is being taken.
The residents of Williamtown are understandably frustrated by the requirement for them to negotiate their way across seven or more government departments and agencies traversing all three levels of government. I have recommended to the assistant defence minister and Defence officials in Canberra that a single point of contact be established—one that is embedded in the local community to provide guidance and assistance to help alleviate much of the distress and confusion. I join with my community in calling for a thorough, systematic approach to the testing of soil, groundwater, bore water and livestock at all properties within the affected area. The issue of compensation for primary industries and individuals suffering economic loss and reputational damage due to the contamination requires immediate attention. I understand that New South Wales EPA has provided to Defence relevant information regarding potential mechanisms for calculating compensation payments. I urge Defence to honour the commitment that has been made to provide compensation to affected residents and businesses as a matter of urgency.
I have consistently asked that Defence take the lead role in the ongoing management of the contamination and genuine engagement with my local community. The community must be kept well informed, be assured that plans are in place to deliver a safe water supply, be adequately compensated for any loss and be part of the conversations about any possible solutions.
There was a report released today by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare benchmarking where Australia's children are today in relation to their safety and welfare. It highlights the fact that as a nation we need to seriously consider where we are going in relation to child welfare.
The report tells us that in the last three years child sexual abuse has risen by 26 per cent, substantiated cases of child abuse have surged by 30 per cent and there has been a 30 per cent rise in child neglect. This is all in the same period—the last three years. If alarm bells were not ringing, they should be now. It is time to stand up and bring parents to account for their responsibilities. We need to reflect on what role governments can play and, all too often at the moment, it is to the pick up the pieces at the end and try and rescue the child's life. We know too many grandparents, kinship parents and foster parents who are being asked to take up the role which is the direct responsibility of the parents. The great underlying questions here for us in this parliament are: 'What is going wrong with our family units?' and: 'Is this place contributing to their unravelling?'
Certainly, the time to deliver better education for prospective parents on what their responsibilities are and what bringing a child into the world means is well past. Most of us feel our way through parenthood by relying on the robust role model of our parents that has worked well for millennia. But, sadly, an increasing number of people starting families have not had the advantage of a stable, loving and nurturing upbringing, and in many cases, despite good intentions, they are just not equipped for the job or, indeed, they make the decision to put their needs before their children.
Over 43,000 children are not living with their families, with half of these in kinship care and the other half in foster care. The number of substantiated cases of child abuse have jumped by eight per cent in the last three years and, tragically, 25 per cent of those physically abused in the last three years are Indigenous. I do not want to get off the subject, but that statistic alone should convince any of those who may seek to frustrate the introduction of the cashless credit card trial in Ceduna that is before the Senate at the moment.
While we respect the differences in families and the right to nurture in different ways, there are some rules of parenting that are universal. Rule No. 1 will always be to love your children more than you love yourself. Putting children first is not buying them everything they want. It is not letting them misbehave. It is being there for them, taking the time to show them the difference between right and wrong and reinforcing their self-worth. Children need and crave consistency in their lives. They need to know what the rules and boundaries of their behaviour are within the family unit. They need to know both parents are on the same page. They need to attend school. They need a bedtime. They need parents who know where they are and who they are hanging out with.
There are some excellent parenting programs, and some are school based. And though I am loath to crowd our school curriculum even more, this has to occur where we can have the attention of young people who are our future parents.
As a society, we also need to say to parents, 'Your children are your responsibility, and it is not acceptable that you put yourself before your children.' I posed the question earlier as to what the driver is of the increasing breakdown of families and what part this place, the parliament, plays in that demise?
I am a conservative by nature, and you may well ask: what does that mean? Well, from my point of view a conservative resists change until convinced that whatever change proposed is going to lead to a change for the better—not that it may be a little better or at least different, or not that others have tried whatever remedy that may be proposed at that time and they like it. I must be convinced that it will—and with the emphasis on 'will'—make for a better outcome.
I am not going to round on any particular decisions that this or previous governments have made that have led to the breakdown of the family unit, but it is worth us all reflecting on the proposition that actions of the past may well have done so. Even more importantly, the actions of the future have the ability to add to the demise of the family unit, or perhaps particularly wise and inspired actions may lead to the arrest of its decline and to the resurrection of the family unit, with all the responsibility that in turn imparts on parents.
So it is, with these terrible figures released today, that the declining outcomes for children can only be arrested if families step up to the mark—if parents meet their moral responsibilities and know what those responsibilities are and how to execute them. The responsibility for that outcome, at least in part, lies with us here in Canberra.
I rise to alert the House to the very concerning lack of youth mental health services in my electorate of Hotham. The mental health of young Australians is one of the most difficult and important challenges that we confront as members of parliament. To date, my community does not have the services it needs to tackle this problem.
There are 36,000 young people living in Monash today. Young people in this community who are experiencing mental health challenges must navigate a very complex system with a near total lack of integration between services. If they do successfully navigate that system and find the services that they need, they need to travel more than an hour each way to get to the nearest headspace. Today I make the formal request, as the member for Hotham, to the health minister, to fund a headspace service within the Monash council region.
Young people today face a very complex and concerning range of issues that look very different from when most of the people in this House were young. The internet has opened up a vast array of new issues, and problems like youth suicide and anxiety disorders like eating disorders continue to grow amongst young people that we represent. Today, in Monash, we are failing to live up to our duty to provide the mental health services that young people need to tackle these challenges.
Monash is one of the councils that I represent, and it is a fantastic area. It is incredibly multicultural, very vibrant and has some of the best educational facilities in the country. Whether we are thinking about the Clayton shops, where my electorate office is located and which buzz with energy, or the lively suburbs of Oakleigh and Oakleigh South, Monash is a fantastic area and a great place to live and work. But the area has some specific needs. Cultural diversity is a major factor. Because of the preponderance of high-performing education institutions, there are a lot of young people living in Monash who were not born in Australia. Many of them are attending those institutions without the support of their parents. Indeed, a study recently of students living in the region highlighted particular stresses that they face around social inclusion, managing anxiety and maintaining adequate nutrition. Within inner Eastern Melbourne, Monash has some indicators that suggest some serious disadvantage within the community. We see that this area has the highest rate of domestic violence incidents within the area and the highest rate of early childhood non-attendance. These indicators suggest how crucial it is that the young people who are living in this community have access to the mental health services that they need.
A local working group—the Link Health and Community—has shown terrific leadership in advocating for a headspace service to assist in meeting what we see is a really serious and growing local need for mental health youth services in Hotham and within the Monash region. Today, I join them in that campaign. We lack an integrated service provider, and this is one of the really significant issues. Instead, what we see in this area is a web of complex services that are not well connected, and often we are seeing young people falling through the cracks—unfortunately often the people who are most in need of these mental health services.
Today, young people living in this area sit by chance at the intersection of three large health regions—for all of which the head offices and main service provision are at a very long distance away from the city itself. After having navigated this complex system, a young person is then allocated to one of the three providers. But what we find, and what is so concerning for us, is that those providers tend to operate at the tertiary end of mental health interventions. That means that a young person needs to be at the point of having a psychiatric episode before they are eligible to be provided services through these providers. For an individual who is trying to do what we want them to do, and tackle their mental health issues early on—so we get that great payback from early intervention—we see that they are lacking the services and support that they need. What we have instead is a pretty piecemeal system that has been pieced together by a range of youth organisations and community health services. These hardworking mental health professionals meet regularly to try to manage the gaps in services that I have discussed, but it is not enough. We should not have to expect that. The young people living in Monash are entitled to have a service that caters to their needs, and today that is not the case.
For the Monash local government area, it is imperative that we tackle this issue, and I ask the health minister to consider my request and provide a formal response. I encourage greater expansion of the health-based initiative to accommodate a coordinated response for the best mental health outcomes for the young people we represent in this chamber. Thank you.
This is an address I wish I did not have to give. When I was elected first to this parliament, I was elected as the member for Parramatta, and I was the member for four years. I latterly represented the electorate of Dundas. Much of the community of the city of Parramatta was in the seat that I represented. My children went to school in Parramatta. The church which we went to was the cathedral church of St John's. So I do have many friends and many linkages with this great city, and I lament very much the events that have recently and so tragically impacted upon this great centre.
First, I would like to offer my personal condolences to Curtis Cheng's family and to the New South Wales Police Force, who lost one of their own. Just that week I had attended a National Police Remembrance Day service, at which both the Commissioner of Police and the Premier stated that they hoped no more names would need to be added to the wall commemorating lost police. Regrettably, this was not to be so. Curtis Cheng was killed in an act of terrorism by a radicalised youth.
This is a concern that many of us have had over a long period of time, but it is a concern I want to express in the context of the nature of our society—the very special society it is. We are a country that is unique in the world. We have settled people who have come from almost every nation of the world, every culture and every faith, and, while we are not perfect, I think we have done it better than they have done it anywhere else in the world. There are some reasons for that. They involve the commitment of members in this place and elsewhere. It is part of the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia, which I believe was written by Sir James Gobbo, that we see sets the framework for a society that is able to work as ours does.
I note from time to time that that agenda specifies first and foremost a commitment to Australia, this nation and its future; our system of government, parliamentary democracy; the rule of law; gender equality; and English as the national language. But it also specifies that we have to respect people from wherever they have come, whatever their differences. We only ask of them that they also offer respect to all others, and this makes us the very unique nation that we are, a very special place. We welcome people of every faith, and that is fundamental. But not every individual is committed to this nation and those principles that I have articulated. They may not be many, but it is an issue that we need to deal with.
Tonight I want to congratulate a young Muslim man—not so young these days—who I think has been extraordinarily courageous, and that is Neil El-Kadomi, the chair of the Parramatta prayer hall—the Parramatta Mosque, as it is called. The young man who committed this act was said to have changed there and worshipped there—he was not necessarily radicalised there. But Neil El-Kadomi has been one who has been forthright in defending the values of this society, what we stand for. That task for him has not been an easy task. I have known Neil El-Kadomi and his family over a long period of time, as have others that I know, and I commend him for what he is doing. I am pleased that the Premier and others have commended him, and I hope other members who want to be associated with supporting our society at a difficult time.
Can I begin by associating myself with the comments of the member for Berowra and acknowledge the work that he does in relation to multiculturalism and working towards the social cohesion of this country, of which I am a proud citizen and a member of parliament. Multiculturalism is a process by which we become Australians, and anyone or any group that seeks to do something different is someone we need to rally against. So I do want to associate myself with the comments from the member for Berowra.
On another note, I would like to bring to the attention of this House an issue in relation to the Parthenon. The Parthenon is widely regarded as the most elegant and purest form of classical Greek art, combining the grandness of architectural form with stunning sculptural and decorative elements. It is the monument of all monuments. It also embodies the democratic values and spirit inherited from classical Greece which have shaped Western civilisation. To borrow from the great American writer Henry Miller, it represents 'the pure distilled heritage of a past which is not altogether lost'. I am therefore pleased to announce that earlier this evening a function was held here in Parliament House, at which the member for Berowra was also present, to launch a new parliamentary friendship group for the Parthenon, not only in recognition of this important cultural legacy but also to raise awareness of the international campaign for the return to Athens of the Parthenon sculptures, which were removed in highly dubious circumstances by Lord Elgin in the early part of the 19th century and which are currently on display in the British Museum in London.
The Greek state has for many years called on Britain to redress this cultural wrong. The former Greek culture minister, Melina Mercouri, famously confronted the director of the British Museum in the early 1980s demanding their return. Despite further diplomatic initiatives, including a formal approach by UNESCO in 2014 to mediate this celebrated cultural dispute, the British Museum has steadfastly refused to co-operate. Indeed, the museum argues that the sculptures are mere art objects which are now detached, both historically and artistically, from the Parthenon and tell a different narrative in London.
In 2009, a new state-of-the-art Acropolis museum was completed to house all of the sculptures and artefacts from the Parthenon within proximity of the Parthenon and in expectation of the return of the Marbles. I am informed that the current Greek government has received comprehensive legal opinion from a team of eminent lawyers, led by Australia's own Geoffrey Robertson QC, who has urged the Greeks to consider legal action in the international courts if cultural diplomacy and political pressure fails. As Robertson puts it:
It is vital not only to Greece, but to the world, that this unique representation of the beginnings of civilised human life should be put back together, in the Acropolis Museum, within sight of the Parthenon and under a blue attic sky.
Australia has been at the forefront in this campaign. Former Prime Ministers Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser and John Howard have all spoken in favour of the return of the Parthenon Marbles. Indeed, a number of members of parliament, both past and currently serving, have also eloquently restated the Greek case for reunification of the sculptures from time to time.
In 2000, a passionate submission was made to the UK House of Commons select committee inquiry into illicit cultural property by our former colleagues Lindsay Tanner, the member for Melbourne, and Petro Georgiou, the member for Cooyong. The memorandum was signed by 44 members of the Australian parliament. This evening, I especially wish to acknowledge the members who are still serving in this parliament and were signatories to the submission: Senator Marise Payne; the member for Grayndler, Anthony Albanese; the member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews; the member for Fisher, Mal Brough; the member for Chisholm, Anna Burke; the member for Sydney, Tanya Plibersek; and the member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson.
The International Association for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures, consisting of some 17 national committees worldwide, is currently chaired by the former chairman of the ABC, David Hill. As David has said:
This is a great cultural and historical wrong that can be righted. After 200 years the time has come for Philhellenes around the world to renew the campaign for return. Australia as a young democracy and with links to both Britain and Greece through migration and shared wartime experiences is well placed to take the lead and I commend the Parliamentary Friendship Group for this initiative.
I would like to finish by acknowledging the support of my parliamentary colleagues and co-convenors of the group, the member for McMillan, Russell Broadbent; the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt; and Senator Nick Xenophon.
I rise today to correct the record for I have been grievously misquoted to have said things that I clearly have not said. On Saturday morning, I was interviewed on Sky News, on their AM Agenda program. At that interview, I spoke at length on the horror of the terrorist events that we have seen take place in our country in the past few years, including at Martin Place and, more recently, in Parramatta. In that interview I described those events as shocking. Let me be clear: we do have a problem with a small yet significant group of people falling prey to the evil and twisted ideologies of radical Islam in Australia. This is not the Australia I believe in. This is not the Australia I want. Further to the comments of the honourable member for Berowra, I do not believe it is the Australia that we as a parliament agree with.
I come from a wonderful place in Western Sydney and I do not think there is a more exceptional example of social inclusion than the Western Sydney Wanderers. We have a peaceful country and, if people want to come and choose to be part of our values and choose to enjoy our peace, then we welcome them. But there are people who choose to ravage our streets and murder innocent people leaving their home, and that is not an Australia I agree with in any way, shape or form. Those people, like the Prime Minister has said, perhaps need to find somewhere else to live.
I have spoken on these events and I have spoken on my views in this place on numerous occasions. In fact, my opinion on these events has been quite consistent. We in this place have a responsibility to build a safer Australia and to keep Australians safe against these insidious threats. That is why we have the need to create measures to ensure we keep Australians safe.
Regarding the Sky News interview, I was not even referring to recent events. In fact, I was referring to an event that took place in Broken Hill over a century ago. Perhaps with 2020 hindsight, I could have chosen my words slightly better. Should people have taken my words out of context and the words have caused them offence, then I am sorry. To suggest that I was referring to recent events is not only offensive but completely ridiculous. Like all Australians, I was shocked, appalled and angered to see the terrorist attacks in my home state, my home city of Parramatta, and Martin Place. Let us not forget that Man Monis lived in my electorate at a time. For people to think that I have a different opinion is beyond offensive. This is the first duty of government: to keep all Australians safe. That is why I have strongly supported the antiterrorism measures that Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull have put forward and, in most cases, they have been very much supported by the opposition. As a parliament, we all see the need to keep Australians safe. I will continue to support the government's efforts to defeat terrorism and to ensure that all Australians are safe on our streets.
House adjourned at 20:00
On 30 August this year, Jagriti and the Western Integrated Family Violence Committee launched the Happy FAMILIES, Happy COMMUNITIES Western Suburbs Guide at the Indian consulate in Melbourne. It is believed that one in three women will be a victim of family violence at some point in their lives, and it is a crime that crosses all postcodes, ethnicities and cultures.
Jagriti (Social Awakening) is a community group formed in Melbourne's western suburbs by leaders of the Australian Indian community to provide support and awareness of family violence. Jagriti was formed in March 2013 after a number of tragic murders within the Indian-Australian community in Victoria. In October 2012, Sargun Ragi, an Indian woman who was in Australia on a spousal visa, was murdered by her husband. She had left him and obtained an intervention order, which was renewed after he continued to harass her over the phone and online. After the highly reported case, Jagriti sponsored Sargun's family to fly to Australia. The entire community was involved in fundraising and donating for this cause, demonstrating the widespread opposition to the family violence effecting people in the Indian-Australian community in Melbourne's west.
The key objectives of Jagriti are: (1) to provide immediate support for victims; (2) to undertake advocacy work to prevent future episodes of family violence; (3) to act as an intermediary and information source for victims and agencies; and (4) to raise awareness of migrants' legal rights in Australia. The recently launched Happy FAMILIES, Happy COMMUNITIES handbook is the product of a collaboration between community and government agencies and networks, including Victoria Police, former victims, university researchers, faith and community leaders, health professionals, social workers and volunteers. In conjunction with the handbook, Jagriti also runs campaigns, workshops and family harmony days to provide further awareness and support for the community.
Whilst this particular guide is tailored for the western suburbs of Melbourne and the Indian community in Melbourne's west, we hope that it will be used as a template on this issue by other regions. It is my hope that this paves the way for further initiatives to be taken to address incidents of family violence within the Indian-Australian community. Australia is a multicultural society and different communities within our nation have different social contexts that can require tailored solutions. Happy FAMILIES, Happy COMMUNITIES is a grassroots, community response to family violence, delivered by local activists who understand the cultural differences of the diaspora community in Australia.
I acknowledge the people involved in both Jagriti and the production of the Happy FAMILIES, Happy COMMUNITIES handbook—Javinder Sidhu; Marsha Thomson, the member for Footscray; Dr Lata Satyen; Professor Angela Taft; Dr Anjali Tikkoo; Muktesh Chibber; Jacinta Masters; Maureen Smith; and Emma Breheny—for all their work both with Jagriti and on this handbook. Also, very importantly, I acknowledge the commitment of all Indian-Australians in Melbourne's west who have stood up and taken a stand against family violence.
It is a pleasure to rise and give the House an update on things that are happening in the spectacular electorate of Dunkley. It is the Riviera of Melbourne. The place runs through my veins, and I am pleased that so much is happening, because it is such a dynamic and diverse community.
At last, the Frankston War Memorial project is getting off the ground. I was pleased to make an election commitment of funding toward that project and to partner with many local people to see the current location—where commemorative services effectively clog up one of the main arterial roads in our city—relocated to Beauty Park, which can cope with the thousands and thousands of local residents that participate in annual commemorative services. We were hoping to have this ready and up and going for the Centenary of the Anzac landings, but some discussions over the precise siting and how to fund it saw that not achieved. What was also in my mind is that this year is also very significant for the Vietnam veterans community. As patron of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia for our region, the guys and their families remind me regularly that this is the 50th anniversary of our engagement in Vietnam. Some very significant battles, such as the battle of Balmoral and Coral, are part of that. We were hopeful of having all of that brought together in a commemoration at the new war memorial site.
The council has finally settled on a game plan, and I want to particularly acknowledge Councillor Darrel Taylor. He has been in the vanguard of this project from the very beginning. From the initial community forum where he and I both spoke with great passion urging community members to get behind the project, he has been there, and his family have been very much involved. Jane Taylor, his delightful wife, has been out there doing fundraiser as well. As mayor and now as a councillor, Councillor Taylor has continued outstanding work and we are finally going to see some progress on that project.
'At last' is another term I use for the Peninsula Link signage project. Members in this House, and certainly the local community, would know of my longstanding campaign to get the Frankston Bypass constructed. Funding commitment from the then Howard government was really a time that focused people's minds on the importance of this project. It has been completed and is now known as the Peninsula Link. The economic and community benefits are substantial, but you need to be a clairvoyant to find which exit to use to go to particular population centres or local attractions. The asset runs right through the community of Baxter, yet nowhere on those exits is the Baxter community respected and recognised with proper signage. Key regional tourism destinations are invisible to the thousands of motorists that are using this magnificent piece of infrastructure.
I was able to secure funding, through another election commitment, to get that signage fixed. Some people wondered why the feds were involved. Well, for regional economic benefits someone had to step up, solve this problem and bring the parties together. Negotiating with multiple road authorities is an absolute delight, and I can commend it to you all.
I am looking forward to further updates for the Dunkley community. There is a lot happening and a lot to report on. I will take another opportunity to provide further information.
I rise today to talk about an outstanding asset in my electorate of Richmond, which is the Tweed Regional Art Gallery. The gallery is one we are all very proud of, particularly with the addition of the Margaret Olley Art Centre in 2014. The gallery is an outstanding establishment which brings enormous social, cultural and economic benefits for communities on the North Coast. Located on the outskirts of Murwillumbah, the gallery is an architectural gem situated amongst panoramic views of the Border Ranges, Mount Warning and the Tweed River. It is, indeed, a stunning location.
I am unashamedly a huge fan of the gallery, and I am not alone in that. Recently we were thrilled to learn that the Tweed Regional Art Gallery and the Margaret Olley Art Centre have been listed among the top one per cent of attractions in the world by global travel site, TripAdvisor, which is a great achievement. The gallery was recently named the fourth best museum in TripAdvisor's 2015 Travellers' Choice 'Top 10 Museums—Australia', and was listed as number eight in the 'Top 25 Museums—South Pacific' list, which is also a great achievement. Of course TripAdvisor is the world's largest travel site with travel reviews and opinions covering 4.9 million areas in 45 countries. As the fabulous gallery director Susi Muddiman recently said: 'I am so pleased that our visitors, especially interstate ones, regard the gallery and our programs so highly. To be listed in the top five museum destinations in the country and in the company of such wonderful facilities, is excellent news for us.'
The gallery is a leader in our region's art tourism market. It brings in over $7 million annually to the Tweed economy, and it continues to attract record crowds. It attracted almost 123,000 visitors in the year of operation since the opening of the Margaret Olley Art Centre, which is another great achievement.
In 2014 we unveiled the Margaret Olley Art Centre, which is a permanent exhibition that is a painstaking yet remarkable re-creation of the home and studio of one of Australia's most loved and respected artists. Margaret Olley had spent some of her childhood in the Tweed and for this reason she bequeathed $1 million to the gallery to have her personal belongings moved to reproduce what has been called 'the most famous rooms in Australian art'. As the local MP and member of the former Labor government I was very proud that we were able to contribute an additional $1 million to make the Margaret Olley Art Centre a reality.
I acknowledge the contribution and commitment of the Tweed Shire Council to the gallery. I also thank the gallery staff, their hardworking volunteers, and also the friends and foundation members of the gallery, all of whom contribute so much to its success.
The Margaret Olley Art Centre truly has put us on the world stage, and I am very proud of this exceptional gallery. It is one that is fostering the vibrant art community of northern New South Wales and attracting visitors from all around the world. In my area are very fortunate to have one of the highest proportions of artistic communities in New South Wales and, indeed, in Australia. I think it is also reflected by the wonderful art galleries that we have.
Madam Deputy Speaker, please, you and others in the chamber should come along and visit the Tweed Regional Art Gallery. It is a remarkable asset.
It is always a pleasure to rise in this place and talk about our local electorates. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about how Logan police have established a dedicated domestic violence and management team. This team is seeking to take a proactive approach to dealing with high-risk domestic violence matters, and I would like to commend them for their initiative.
In 2014, Logan police responded to 5300 domestic violence matters. At the moment there are around 177 high-risk couples on the radar across Logan, and we know that this has been a subject of broad discussion across the country.
This new team of four officers will target perpetrators identified as high-risk offenders. Logan Domestic and Family Violence coordinator, Acting Sergeant Larissa Shaw, is part of the team, and six years ago she left her own domestic violence situation. Sergeant Shaw built herself up mentally and physically after leaving her situation and created a state of emotional wellbeing not only for herself, but for others through some fantastic programs she has put together. She now hopes to be a role model for other people in domestic violence situations and show others that there is life after walking away and that they do not have to suffer in silence.
Domestic and family violence is preventable and can be stopped. Victims of violence often live in fear for themselves and their families, even when they have left an abusive relationship. Over the past 18 months, significant progress has been made in the Australian community in raising awareness of domestic and family violence. As a government, we are addressing what should be a simple goal—that all Australians deserve a life free from violence. In 2015-16, the government will deliver more than $500 million to front-line services, which will provide support to vulnerable Australians, including women experiencing violence.
To those in our community who are suffering from or have left or are preparing to leave a situation where they are affected by family and domestic violence, I want to say to you today that there is help and support. Although it is described as the hardest step, asking for help is an important first step. There is a wide range of services and payments to help people in need. A great starting point is to phone 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)—the National Sexual Assault, Domestic and Family Violence Counselling Service. I encourage people who witness domestic or family violence to also be proactive and report instances of domestic violence and support those in the community who need that support at this very difficult time.
I wish to bring to the attention of the chamber a bold initiative that has been taken in the national interest by the Sunshine Coast City Council. On 21 July the Sunshine Coast council lodged a submission with the Australian Communications and Media Authority to seek a declaration of a cable protection zone off the coast from the Sunshine Coast. Should the ACMA see its way clear to agree to the council's request and commence the process to declare a cable protection zone, this will enable investment in Australia's next offshore broadband connection to the rest of the world, landing the Sunshine Coast at the forefront of internet development.
There are currently only five international cable connections to Australia—four within a short stretch of the coastline of Sydney and one in Perth. The entire eastern seaboard broadband connectivity to the rest of the world occurs through the four cables that exist around Sydney. The communications minister has himself identified this as a vulnerable single point of failure for Australia with too many cables located in the same pathway and going to the same access points.
On the Sunshine Coast we are doing something about it by obtaining a cable protection zone offshore from the Sunshine Coast and delivering a high band width submarine cable will provide redundancy for the eastern seaboard and better and more competitively priced access to broader international telecommunications and the markets generally for Australia and Australian industry.
The Sunshine Coast is an ideal location for the next submarine cable landing on the eastern seaboard, given the topography of the coastline, the marine environment and given that it is far enough away from Sydney to be a viable alternative access point. I believe this is fantastic initiative by the Sunshine Coast City Council and truly of national significance. We need to assess our vulnerabilities in this nation and to make sure that we are not too dependent on one state and one location. I want to encourage all members of the House to get behind this and voice their support to ACMA and the communications minister for this bold initiative.
Recently I visited Abbotsleigh Citrus farm and I saw a thriving family business that is 100 per cent Australian owned. It is situated at Wallaville, just off the Bruce Highway, near a town called Gingin, which is inland from Bundaberg. It has been owned by the McMahon and Campbell families since 2003. They have 60,000 trees on 170 hectares and they irrigate it out of the Burnett river. They produce citrus fruit: oranges, mandarines and lemons. They hope to have 20 hectares of blueberry bushes planted by Christmas. There is a huge packing shed and cold rooms to boot.
Abbotsleigh Citrus has become a competitive force within the Australian citrus industry. It is an example of a business that is a large exporter and benefits from Australian free trade agreements. It exports to China, Indonesia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Canada. Owners are excited about their earning potential if we can secure the China Free Trade Agreement. They also see great potential in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP.
Abbotsleigh Citrus is also a big employer of seasonal workers. The owners have praised the government's Seasonal Worker Program, and it is working very well. The program offers valuable training for seasonal workers and access to a reliable, returning workforce for employers like Abbotsleigh. There is a seven-month rotation of workers from these Pacific island countries. They do not settle in to any great degree, but they do come back. They spend a lot of their money back home—whether it be in Tonga or other Pacific islands—and they are only too eager to come back in seven months. Their work skills and work ethic are something to be proud of. Abbotsleigh pays about $4 million per year in wages.
Abbotsleigh is a true self-made success story. Our government is committed to helping businesses like Abbotsleigh. They contribute positively to our local economy and they deserve all the help the government can give them. They are potential employers of refugees, when and if that program becomes available to rural and regional Queensland. You must remember that rural and regional Queensland has a problem maintaining people in the regional areas. Thank you.
A huge cheer erupted across Ipswich when the Stadium Australia siren sounded just before 5.30 pm on NRL Grand Final Day. The Ipswich Jets had defeated the Newcastle Knights 26 to 12 to be crowned National Rugby League State Champions, before a viewing audience of nearly 1.8 million. The Sunday before, the Jets won their first Queensland Cup, defeating minor premiers the Townsville Blackhawks 32 to 20 at Lang Park. To put that victory into context, the Blackhawks had 582 games of NRL experience to Ipswich's six, and the Jets had to win five games in a row just to reach the final. But they did, playing with their trademark style—audacious, attacking flair, with short kick-offs, jinking runs and offloads aplenty. You take your heart into your mouth when you support the Ipswich Jets. With an attack built on an uncompromising and underrated defence, the Ipswich Jets had their best season in 33 years of history.
Great credit goes to co-coaches Ben and Shane Walker. The Walker boys took Ipswich from the bottom of the table to being the best team outside the NRL in rugby league. It goes to show that the NRL should support the western corridor bid of Ipswich, supported by Logan and Toowoomba, for an NRL licence. The Walker boys brought discipline to the Jets, together with an unconventional playing philosophy. If you have seen the Ipswich Jets play, you know there is no rugby league team like them, and commentators on the day at Stadium Australia made that point repeatedly.
However, style can take you only so far. Luckily, the Jets are blessed with talented players across the team, including courageous captain Keiron Lander, who has led the team from the front all year and finishes his five years at the club. Keiron is an impressive young man, not only being a terrific footballer, but also a passionate advocate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The team has wonderful players, including many who will go on to play in the NRL: Rod Griffin, Marmin Barba and Billy McConnachie—an Ipswich City Council concreter by day, but an enforcer on the field.
I want to thank the back room as well: my good friend, CEO of the Ipswich Jets, Wayne Wendt, with his wonderful executive offsider, Nicole McPhee, with a fine board. Credit goes to Mark, Johno, Chris and Sandy. I want to make a special mention of a person that has done just about everything for the Ipswich Jets—Jim Landy. He has been a board member, secretary of the club, manager and coach over the years, and his wonderful wife Dot, who is always there on game day. No-one cheers more loudly for the Ipswich Jets than Dot. Thank you also to team assistant Freddie, who is always there to help in any way, shape or form.
The Indigenous Appreciation Day, the Defence Appreciation Day and the support for people with disability through ALARA to promote and encourage opportunities for people with disabilities—all these things go to show the Ipswich Jets have done a great job for the people of Ipswich. (Time expired)
There is an urgent need to modernise and streamline our media legislation. The Broadcasting Services Act is from a pre-internet era. It is an anachronism that is squeezing the life out of our regional TV networks. Current legislation restricts broadcasters to a reach of less than 75 per cent of the population—what is known as the 'reach rule'. Yet now, any broadcaster can reach the entire population online—with services like Channel Seven's Plus7 or ABC's iView.
As a regional MP, I despair at the impact of the reach rule. As the metropolitan networks sell content to the regionals at exorbitant prices, they cut local news content to the bone and cut new investment in TV transmission towers. They have no choice. TV towers might seem unnecessary in a modern era to some, but free-to-air TV will remain important for older viewers and high-profile national TV events for many, many years to come. To make things worse, large parts of regional Australia lost TV reception—including in towns like Crookwell—in the switchover from analogue to digital. Despite the former Labor government spending more than $900 million on the switchover, not a single new TV tower was funded.
Broadcasters also face restrictions in merging with radio and newspapers. The 'two out of three' rule prevents ownership of TV, radio and newspapers in any one licence area. Again, in a modern era, the obvious answer is to combine written content with TV and radio, just as the ABC does. In practice, this rule means that a newspaper company like Fairfax cannot add both radio and TV to its network. In the past, this restriction may have been justifiable. Media markets were restricted to a single town or city, and there was little convergence across media channels. But now, we can view video, listen to podcasts or live streams and read news articles on a single website, and there is fierce competition crossing traditional geographical boundaries. We also have a competition regulator to look after these things.
The answer, as many already know, is to get rid of this anachronistic legislation. In the process, it will be possible to manage a sensible transition, where the local news content and TV transmission are protected and enhanced. Regional viewers want it; regional networks are campaigning for it. The results of a recent survey undertaken by Prime, Southern Cross, WIN and Imparja, released this week, showed that 85 per cent of regional and rural respondents were concerned about losing their local news bulletins. Tellingly, the vast majority supported changes to the media rules that would help broadcasters continue to provide local new services. Media deregulation has been waiting in the wings for too long. It is now time for change.
Animal cruelty as a result of our live export trade was the subject of a shocking report on 7.30 last night. The program highlighted how poorly the live export market has been monitored since the Turnbull-Abbott government was elected. The programrevealed that since the Export Supply Chain Assurance Scheme, or ECAS, was implemented, we have had an increase in violations of Australia's live export rules which are designed to prevent such crimes. The Minister for Agriculture, Mr Joyce, seems to think that behind-the-scenes chats with people that do the wrong thing is better than publicly shaming them or following legislation that requires that they be acted against. He said as much on TV last night. He is wrong.
The agriculture minister has form on this subject. He scrapped Labor's policy to set up an independent office of animal welfare, saying:
This is one bit of red tape that we can do without.
As I said in this chamber not so long ago, animal welfare is more than just red tape. The treatment of animals demands more than just fleeting consideration as food production. Most sensible farmers and farming organisations think this too. Programs like 7.30 last night do great damage to Australia's reputation as a great agriculture exporting country, even apart from the issue of cruelty itself. Proper animal welfare should be a standard to which any self-respecting government should strive. Indeed, it is in the enlightened self-interest of the industry that adequate regulations be enforced. That is why Labor has policies to not just legislate against animal cruelty, but force openness in what the agriculture minister wants to remain a closed-door affair.
Labor will continue to fight any plans to wind back the animal welfare protections that were put in place while we were in government. Labor has called for the appointment of an inspector-general of animal welfare. Further, the member for Hunter, my colleague and shadow minister for agriculture, introduced a motion into this House calling on the minister and the government to provide quarterly reports to parliament on any new markets, the number of head exported, any allegations of animal welfare breaches, investigations undertaken and any actions taken against those who have breached, or should have prevented breaches, of Australian standards.
As the member for Hunter said, the minister's report will place on the public record an easy-to-access and understandable account of the state of the sector, any animal welfare incidents, such as the ones documented by 7.30 last night, and how they have been dealt with—or not dealt with, as on this occasion. This report and the appointment of an inspector-general will be critical to the rebuilding and maintaining of public trust. The ball is now in the government's court.
We just had the show in Melbourne, which tens of thousands—probably hundreds of thousands—of Melburnians went to. It seems that the new Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, is a new show bag but with the same contents as the previous Prime Minister.
I rise to provide an update on the 2015 Pride of Australia awards. I talked about the nominations here a little while ago, and it gives me great pleasure to now reveal the following winners that were announced last week by the NT News.
Belinda Marshall won the courage award. Belinda had leukaemia 20 years ago. Her health is still not fabulous, but that has not stopped her. She made an outstanding effort raising over $150,000 for leukaemia. She deservedly won the courage award.
The inspiration award was won by Dr Rama Jayaraj, who is a clinical scientist and cancer researcher at the wonderful Charles Darwin University. He has inspired his students through an integrated, case-based approach to learning. He is also another deserving winner.
The environment award winner was Mandy Hall, who has worked with the Ark Animal Hospital, a fantastic facility in Palmerston. She has done some great work there helping wildlife. We are very, very pleased that Mandy was the winner of this award.
Anyone who knows anyone who does foster caring should be so grateful to these wonderful people. Marieanna Hammond, an extraordinary foster mother from Alice Springs, has been doing foster care for more than 10 years, mainly with children with high needs. She was also a very deserving winner of the care and compassion award.
The young leader award was awarded to Abbey Holmes, who is an extraordinary young woman. She is absolutely gorgeous. She is just a delight. She is a fantastic sportsperson. She is a business woman. She is just incredible. She has raised money for prostate cancer. She is someone that we need to watch.
The community spirit award was won by Andrew Warton, who is another fantastic Territorian. He is working with Lifeline at the moment, but he has done some extraordinary things, including being the founder of kayak for youth. This award was very well deserved.
The Heroism award was won by Steve Martz, who has spent 17 years saving lives working with CareFlight. He is another very deserved winner. Kourtney Rimmer won the Child of Courage award. An eight-year-old boy who suffers from autism, he has cycled and run more than 100 kilometres, raising $4,300 for Autism NT. Lee-Anne Stallan won the Outstanding Bravery award and Romola Sebastianpillai won the Fair Go award. The People's Choice award was won by Bob Shewring for his endeavours to bring home the bodies of soldiers left buried overseas. Well done. Thank you everybody.
If no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes until 10.30. I hear no objections, so we may proceed.
Last week, I had the privilege of once again visiting the Ella Centre in Haberfield in my electorate. It is a local organisation that works hard to support people in the inner west with disability, servicing the area now for more than 40 years. In that time, the Ella Centre's passion for social justice has ensured support for people with disabilities or dementia, older people and carers, as well as those struggling to get by.
My colleague Jenny Macklin, the shadow minister for disability reform, joined me as we celebrated the announcement that the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be arriving in the inner west in 2017. For people with disability, their carers and families, this is a significant milestone. Jesse Ellis currently relies on the Ella Centre. They help him with issues relating to his cerebral palsy. For people like Jesse, whom we met at the centre, the NDIS will make a world of difference. The NDIS is an example of how the decisions that governments make have the capacity to shape people's lives for the better. I am very proud to have been part of the former Labor government which fought hard to see the NDIS introduced. I know that many local residents with disability have waited their whole life to get the care and support that they need. It is a huge breakthrough for people in my local community. Now they have the certainty of knowing when they will be able to access services as part of the NDIS. Because of the NDIS, people with disability will have their needs met in a way that supports them to live with the choice and the dignity that they deserve.
It must be noted that campaigns are only won when they have the support of the community. I thank local supporters for their work in advocating for the NDIS over the past few years. Their voices have been critical throughout this process. I would also like to recognise some of the other organisations in my electorate that make a positive difference each and every day in the lives of people with disability. FRANS in Croydon and the Infants' Home in Ashfield are two more examples of local organisations committed to ensuring equality of opportunity. The history of FRANS dates back to 1983. Today they run life skills programs, vacation care, supported living and recreational activities. I visited FRANS with former Prime Minister Julia Gillard some few years ago. The Infants' Home looks after young children with disability, providing critical support.
I want to thank Phil Coller, the CEO of the Ella Centre, and Sonja Despotov, the services manager, along with board members David Pigott and Phil McCrea, for hosting us last week. I wish them all the best as they continue to support people with disability, their carers and families in the inner west.
It has been a huge weekend—and a huge year, actually—in the electorate of Calare, particularly as last Friday night was the end of the formal proceedings of the bicentenary of the proclamation of Bathurst. To the chagrin of places like Brisbane and Melbourne, Bathurst is the third oldest city in Australia outside of the Sydney basin and Hobart. As much as I hate to remind Melbourne and Brisbane, they are not nearly as old as the central west of New South Wales in modern Australian terms.
It was a huge week and weekend. Tuesday was about when all of the V8 supercars started turning up. It was one long practice right through. On Friday night, the gala ball to end the formal celebrations for the bicentenary of Bathurst and the central west was held. It was a huge night. I am very proud to say that all of the drivers came along—which was a big thing of them to do, as Saturday was the top 10 shoot-out and a lot of formal races were to be held on the Saturday. So it was a very big thing for those drivers to give up an hour or so of their time.
An honourable member: Did you race?
No, I did not race, but I am sure I would have liked to—if someone else were driving the car!
Governor Lachlan Macquarie raised the flag in Bathurst on 7 May 1815, just over 200 years ago. As I said, it is Australia's oldest inland city and the third oldest city in Australia, in actual fact, which the rest of Australia will have to learn to live with. Craig Lowndes, Nick Percat, Steve Johnson, Fabian Coulthard, and Renee Gracie and Simona De Silvestro—the first all-female combination to race in 17 years—all came, and everybody shared the very rich history of the establishment of the Bathurst 1000 back in 1973. The Bathurst races obviously have a much older history than that, with Jack Brabham having won there as well prior to that.
The Bathurst 1000 has kept up to its reputation. Over 200,000 people attended and they were all fascinated watching it and quite obviously on the edge of their seats when those two drivers, on successive days, had very bad crashes. I hope Scott Pye and last year's winner, Chaz Mostert, recover quickly. But this is a big boost to the region. It is worth $21 million, which is over $5 million a day for the time that they are there.
When the historians come to look back at this 44th Parliament, they will look in amazement and say, 'How unlucky for a country to cop the worst Prime Minister since World War II, combined with the worst Treasurer since World War II and also, just to add to that, the worst Speaker since World War II.' But it is not enough that that trio are now festering off in some corridor somewhere; the fourth leg in that quadrella is the worst Attorney-General since World War II—sadly, someone who is still in that office. He has had the Arts portfolio stripped from him, but we still have the worst Attorney-General since World War II in office.
We had the extraordinary situation this week where the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, not a political operator at all, took the unusual step of issuing a media release. Her statement highlights the impact that family violence has on the federal family law courts. Family violence complicates matters coming before the courts. Mediation is a common early intervention tool in most disputes, including family disputes, but it is not an appropriate intervention where there is family violence, obviously. Matters involving family violence, parenting disputes or property disputes will invariably end up before a judge to make a determination.
The Chief Justice, Diana Bryant, said that where there are delays, particularly at the interim hearing stage, it creates risk. The Attorney-General should know this. Litigants attending at court for a hearing may find that the sheer volume of matters on the duty list will make it unlikely that they can be heard on that day, and then they often agree to settle where perhaps they should not. The resulting consent order must be placed before a judge, but at that stage there is not enough evidence for the judge to be in a position to know what the risks may be. Delays in court are putting children at risk of harm—I will make it clear.
The Chief Justice has called for the urgent replacement of judges. There are six Federal Circuit Court judges and one Family Court Judge who have not been replaced. These are budgeted positions, so there is no cost to the budget. The Attorney-General cannot blame his cruel and thankfully frustrated divorce tax. The unfilled judicial vacancies are placing added pressure on the remaining judges, who must take on the extra workload created by their colleagues retiring. The Chief Justice said on Radio National, in an extensive interview that I recommend to people, that the courts never make up this lost time and that the delay in replacing judges is a crucial element in the delays being experienced across the country—in Brisbane, in Newcastle and, in fact, in all of our family courts.
The Chief Justice of the Family Court is not the only person of high office to have commented recently on the failure of the Attorney-General to replace our judges. In August, the Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit Court also released a media statement in which he said that until judges are replaced delays will continue to increase. The chair of the Law Council's Family Law Section, Rick O'Brien, in a media release in July this year, said:
There is absolutely no excuse for a failure by any government to ensure that retiring judges are replaced immediately.
(Time expired)
The Flavours of Tasmania event will be held tonight. More than 30 producers of fine Tasmanian goods will be on show to an expected audience of more than 400 in the Great Hall of Parliament House in Canberra tonight. An annual event, Flavours of Tasmania has gained a reputation over the years as an excellent working display of the very best food products produced in Tasmania. Once a year, we will bring a slice of the island state to Canberra so the locals can taste, smell, see and hear the evidence of the quality of the produce that is produced and is increasingly becoming world renowned.
The 34 sellers represented include everything from chocolate producers to oysters, whisky, seafood sausages, apples, cherries, ginger beers, fine wines and ciders. Of course, a number of them will come from my electorate of Lyons, which stretches across more than 50 per cent of Tasmania—so it is not hard to find not only good and very talented food producers but also people like Matt Pavey and Steve White, from St Helens on the east coast, who will have their wooden guitars on display tonight. Their St Helens based PW Guitars business uses celery top, Huon pine, blackwood, sassafras and black wattle in the shaping of their musical instruments to make them literally works of art. Matt and Steve were furniture makers on the east coast for more than 30 years. They used to joke together that they would start making guitars instead of chests of drawers because it was lighter on their backs and shoulders, and finally the creative duo were hooked. People such as Tommy Emmanuel now select PW guitars as their instruments of choice. Alice Laing's and Chris Manson's obsession with food and Tasmania led me to deliver their sea salt flake business at Little Swanport on the east coast. They will also be here tonight, amongst many others.
I particularly thank Senator Abetz and his staff for the role that they have played in organising this. I also mention a number of other producers, including JBS Australia, who will be supplying meat from Longford in my electorate, Sullivans Cove—I note the member for Franklin's attendance here today—Heartwood Malt Whisky, Lark Distillery—who get their peat from up at Bronte, so I claim them as well, Julie—Tasmanian Seafoods, Huon Aquaculture, Tamar Ridge, Josef Chromy, Petuna Seafoods, Tassal, Hansen Orchards and Norfolk Bay Gourmet Seafoods.
Today I wear yellow as part and in support of the Believe in Bendigo campaign, a great campaign and movement that started in my community to put out publicly how proud we are to be from Bendigo. Part of the Believe in Bendigo campaign is about showing the world, as well as ourselves, that Bendigo is a welcoming place and an inclusive and diverse community. A key part of the campaign is to ensure that there is a positive message about people's right to worship and come together and people's chance to play and to share one another's food and culture and what makes us really strong as a community.
To date there have been a number of very successful events to help promote the Believe in Bendigo campaign. Our local small businesses got together and ran a two-page ad in our local papers—businesses willing to put on the record that they believe in Bendigo. There has been a fantastic day of music and a family picnic day in the park on the Grand Final public holiday. Over 2,000 people came together in yellow, sharing each other's company, enjoying music and enjoying the food.
I would like to acknowledge some of the people involved. The committee driving it includes Damian Wells, a local person, and Margot Spalding, one of the owners and creators of Jimmy Possum furniture. These are two of the many people who have come together to form the Believe in Bendigo campaign. It is an opportunity for us to set the record straight, to include people and to educate them, and to make sure that everybody knows that Bendigo is an inclusive and connected place.
The Believe in Bendigo campaign is a grassroots campaign. It started in somebody's living room with the best will and intentions at heart. It is people from a variety of walks of life coming together with a common purpose—to halt the negative media that was starting to get out about Bendigo and to say that we are proud to be from Bendigo. It is a positive campaign and a fun campaign that encourages people to come together. It provides some education so that people understand what their rights are as Australian citizens, what their rights are in terms of local government and what their responsibilities are as well.
Recently, the Premier of Victoria came and met with the group and declared his support for the Believe in Bendigo movement and campaign. It has been a tough couple of months in Bendigo, but, with campaigns like Believe in Bendigo, I know that we will be able to recover from those bad media reports that we have had. I encourage everybody to get behind the Believe in Bendigo movement, trade the blue and trade the red for yellow, and support Bendigo in the Believe in Bendigo campaign.
St Stephen's School in my electorate has taken an entrepreneurial approach to capitalising on opportunities in international education which exist in emerging countries around the Indian Ocean rim. St Stephen's has identified the vast opportunities which the international education services market offers to Australian educational institutions and is to be commended for displaying entrepreneurial spirit in establishing an international division called St Stephen's Global.
Under the visionary leadership of Principal Mr Tony George, Director of Global Programs Dr Mark Fielding and Director of St Stephen's Institute Mrs Donella Beare, St Stephen's Global has been instrumental in the establishment of the Indian Ocean Rim Education Network. This is a network of forward thinking educational and church leaders who are committed to building the welfare of the region through the provision of educational opportunities. St Stephen's School, through St Stephen's Global and St Stephen's Institute, is organising the inaugural international Indian Ocean Rim Education Network Conference in Mauritius, this November. The conference will include over 100 delegates from around the region and has been acknowledged by the Australian government. The Australian High Commissioner, Her Excellency Ms Susan Coles, is scheduled to address the conference on the opening day, along with the Minister of Education and Human Resources of the Republic of Mauritius.
St Stephen's Global has been invited by Minister Andrew Robb and Austrade to be involved in discussions about the Commonwealth government's Australian International Education 2025 Report, and Dr Fielding attended the ministerial round table held in Sydney in August this year. The school will also feature in the forthcoming AIE Report as an exemplar school in international education. St Stephen's is in the process of establishing a registered training organisation in order to provide vocational education training certificates in a number of areas, including business, information communications technology, languages and education.
Recognising that today's students need to be global ready, agile citizens in a dynamic globalised world, St Stephen's Global aims to ensure that graduates exhibit high levels of intercultural competence, develop a relationship-centred approach to addressing global issues, and express creativity and innovation in working through the challenges and opportunities which the 21st century provides. On behalf of the federal parliament, I congratulate St Stephen's on its innovative and entrepreneurial approach to education.
As members in this place may be aware, the Tasmania task force co-chaired by me and our state Labor leader, Bryan Green, has spent the last few months moving around Tasmania holding public forums, taking online submissions, talking with industry and having roundtables around the state on specific issues, looking at the future long-term sustainability of the Tasmanian economy. Tasmania still has two very different paths that it might go down. We heard from the member for Lyons about the Taste of Tasmania event tonight and about some of the wonderful produce that Tasmania is producing at the moment.
We are still, sadly, performing badly on many economic indicators. We still have one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the country. I think that four out of our five regions are in the top 10 of highest youth unemployment rates in the country. We have some really serious issues with year 12 retention and some serious issues in terms of skills, so there is still much work to be done. At our roundtables and talking to industry many things have come to the fore, but it has been particularly interesting to hear about the focus on education from our industry leaders.
Last week was a busy week in Tasmania as we started to finalise some of the consultations. We had several shadow ministers in Tasmania, particularly in southern Tasmania. The shadow minister for employment, Brendan O'Connor, was in Tasmania talking to workers and unions about penalty rates and the importance of penalty rates to their salaries and to the Tasmanian economy. We also had the assistant shadow minister for health, Stephen Jones, having consultation on medicinal cannabis and what opportunities that might present for Tasmania. We had the shadow minister for communications, Jason Clare, in town talking ICT and he held a roundtable with industry about innovation in industry. Of course, the NBN did get a mention, as did those areas of Tasmania that are not going to get the NBN. Importantly, it was interesting to hear about the wonderful innovations in Tasmania in ICT and to hear about some of the interesting apps and technology in Tasmania, including some in my electorate.
On Friday it was wonderful to have the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, in town together with the then shadow minister for mental health, Jan McLucas, to launch Labor's initial response to the National Mental Health Commission's report into mental health, where Labor talked about our ambition to halve the suicide rate. We then had a discussion with local businesses and the Leader of the Opposition. The opposition leader also took the opportunity to recommit $100 million additional funding to the Midland Highway in Tasmania. That $100 million replaces the $100 million that was taken out by the Abbott government when it came to office. It is important funding for the Midland Highway, which is the main connection between northern and southern Tasmania.
Youth in Australia is a vital resource and a very important part of our economy and our society. In a week where there has been a focus in parliament on troubled youth with the act of terrorism in Western Sydney, I want to reflect on some positive youth engagements in my electorate of Swan. I have spoken a bit in the past about the Esther Foundation and my involvement with this group, but today I want to focus on some effective youth programs being run in the City of Belmont in my electorate of Swan. The City of Belmont is a low-SES area, but its demographics are changing and it is raising its SES rating. It runs an effective youth engagement program through the YMCA Perth.
As members might know, the YMCA has been a provider of values based services to Australia's youth for over 150 years. Each year across Australia over 300,000 young people come into contact with YMCA youth services staff. The YMCA has dedicated youth services operating in more than 25 communities across the country, and one of them is in the City of Belmont. On Monday, 6 May 2013 they commenced a long-term contract to provide youth services to City of Belmont residents aged between 11 and 25, and they have been getting results. On Saturday night the annual mayoral dinner was held by the City of Belmont, which I attended. The city has an annual award which is called the City of Belmont Opportunity Award. That was awarded to the YMCA for the work they have been doing with youth in the City of Belmont.
One element of the YMCA Perth's program in Belmont has been The Base. The Base is a youth centre for 11- to 17-year-olds, who live or go to school in the City of Belmont, and is located in Abernethy Road, Cloverdale. It gives local young people somewhere to meet, eat and chat while having access to qualified youth workers and case workers and hosts a range of activities, including outings and outreach on Saturdays. As the City of Belmont says, 'It's a great place to hang out with friends, meet new people, play video games, show off your pool and table tennis skills and watch movies on the big screen'. The food and soft drinks provided are all free to young people. This is obviously funded by the ratepayers of the City of Belmont. So there is no state or federal funding. It is a local program, and I congratulate the City of Belmont for their input into looking after the youth of Belmont. Parents are also welcome to come along and visit.
We cannot start engaging with youth just at the age of 11. I want to particularly pay tribute to the PCYC and Glenys Godfrey, the MLA for Belmont, who have been successfully putting on a Blue Light Disco for seven- to 11-year-olds. They had one on Saturday night, with 125 kids coming along. The police popped in. They will be running more. So, congratulations to the YMCA and to Glenys Godfrey.
I rise today to speak about an issue that is having a devastating impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians—and that is ice. There would be no-one in this place who has not had their electorate affected by ice addiction. Recently, all the cars in the street in which my hairdresser is located were broken into. Computers, cameras and cash were stolen from those cars. It is a regular occurrence in suburbs here in Canberra. I would put money on it that it is mainly due to ice addiction.
Last night I helped launch a special report by Australian Strategic Policy Institute, with my colleague the member for Throsby and the AFP Assistant Commissioner, called Focusing Australia's National Ice Strategy on the problem, not the symptoms. It is crucial that we continue the national conversation around ice and the problems it is causing in our communities, like those I have just highlighted in my own electorate, because the effects of ice use can be found in our cities and in the bush. It is felt by families, by doctors and nurses, by police and emergency services personnel and by our courts.
There are two elements of ice that strike me as particularly concerning: the highly addictive nature of ice and the ease with which people seem to be able to obtain it. ASPI's strategy focuses on ways to reduce the harm to the Australian community that do not necessarily rely on seizing drugs or making arrests. It focuses on ways to reduce the availability of drugs, the disruption of user behaviour and the integration of education and health initiatives. I applaud ASPI and the report's writers John Coyne and Vern White for calling for a multifaceted approach.
Vern is a sitting senator in the Senate of Canada and is a Visiting Fellow at ASPI. His efforts as the Ottawa Police Service Chief focused on reducing supply; associated criminal activity, particularly petty crimes; reducing the number of addicts by restricting access; and making addiction treatments a priority. His experience and knowledge was gained at a time when Ottawa was called the 'crack capital of Canada'. So we have some invaluable lessons to learn here from his experiences. The lessons that Vern gained in transforming the 'crack capital of Canada' can be applied here too. Last night, Vern admitted that our problem in Australia may indeed be worse than Canada's.
It is clear we have a serious, serious problem on our hands. Australians use more ice than the citizens of any other country. Currently, there are 400,000 Australians using ice on a regular basis. The problem is getting worse. Over the past 10 years, the number of injecting drug users who use ice has increased by 52 per cent. Every aspect of the Australian community must work together to fight this terrible drug.
I rise today to convey the news to my electors in Corangamite that I have announced with Michael Keenan, the Minister for Justice, very important emergency relief for those who suffered in the recent bushfires in Victoria. Minister Keenan has announced, along with the Victorian Minister for Emergency Services, Jane Garrett, under the joint Commonwealth-State Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, a range of assistance for those affected by the bushfires. In my electorate there was one particular man—I will not go into the details because he has gone through a very, very tough time—whose name is Brad Carter. I spoke to him this morning. He lost his home in a fire in Wensleydale which burnt 10 hectares and completely wiped out his home and his tools. So it has been a very devastating time for him.
I am very pleased to say that eligible individuals and their families suffering personal hardship and distress will now have access to the following emergency grants: Emergency Relief assistance of up to $520 for an adult and $260 per child to cover emergency food, shelter, clothing and personal items; and significantly Emergency Re-establishment assistance, which provides assistance of up to $31,950 per household for clean-up, emergency accommodation, repairs, rebuilding—that is for a principal place of residence—and replacing essential household contents.
Both the state and Commonwealth governments have obviously acted very quickly to provide this very important relief in the areas affected by the bushfire: the Macedon Ranges, Mitchell, Murrindindi and Surf Coast, which I represent. More details are available on my website, sarahhenderson.com.au, as to how people can make an application.
We have talked a lot about the importance of governing with care and with compassion, and I know that the people of Corangamite will see that we have acted quickly in relation to the particular family which has been very severely affected by this bushfire. It is a very scary time, in some ways, in the lead-up to summer. I have been very proud to advocate for the upgrade of a roundabout in Anglesea, which has caused huge issues with traffic build-up, coming into summer. For those who suffered on that terrible day of Ash Wednesday so many years ago, those memories are very alive as to what happened along the Great Ocean Road in places like Anglesea, Moggs Creek and Lorne. I am very pleased to make this announcement with the minister and, as I say, it is just one more reflection of a caring and compassionate government.
Fed eration Chamber adjourned at 10:32 .