I thank the House for their support for this. This morning in my community, in Miranda at Our Lady Star of the Sea, in about half an hour, the shire will gather together to commemorate and celebrate the life of a great man, a great Australian. The shire has lost one of its great pioneers and its legends, one of its true gentlemen. Michael Patrick Thomas Tynan of Sylvania Waters passed away early Tuesday morning last week, 2 February, and was taken to his loving God.
Michael was born in Carlton in 1935 and was educated at Marist Brothers High School, Kogarah. He was a loyal servant of our party for many years, serving the people of Sutherland Shire as a councillor from 1974 to 1991 and as shire president from 1975 to 1978 and 1988 to 1989. There will be no other shire president like Michael Tynan. Michael loved his shire with a deep-seated pride and unashamed passion. He was a reformist on the council, working collaboratively with his general manager John Rayner over many years to put Sutherland council on a firm business footing. He was instrumental in putting the council in the position it is in today: very strong. He listened to the wishes and needs of his community long before formal consultation was something that was required. He always understood the need to listen—something that he practised in his personal, business and civic life.
He was an incredibly successful businessman, building a large private business spanning the Sutherland Shire and into the southern highlands, in the motor vehicle industry. He left school in year 10, working on a dairy farm in Hoxton Park, before working in a general store, where he started time in the jewellery department. He started his own business life as a jeweller in Kogarah, opening a store on Railway Parade. He gave the weekly man of the match watch each Monday to the Dragons rugby league team—because the Sharks had not started yet—a tradition that he continued throughout his business career, supporting numerous sporting teams, particularly his beloved Sharks, throughout the Sutherland Shire.
He had an interest in rally driving. He was offered a Mazda to drive in a race, and three months later he opened a Mazda dealership, leasing the total service station on the Princes Highway. Tynan Motors opened for business on St Patrick's Day 1966. No-one can doubt the great Irish temperament of Michael Tynan. For him to do that as a proud Catholic, and proud of his Irish heritage, was an appropriate sign. In his first year of business Michael sold 20 new Mazdas a month—and at the height of Ford and Holden's popularity, which was quite a feat of salesmanship skills and business skills. His business on the corner of Acacia Road and Princes Highway, Sutherland was known to locals as Tynan's Corner. But, most importantly, it blossomed into an empire which today employs more than 300 people and has 17 franchises and five sales outlets. Michael's business was inducted into the Family Business Australia Hall of Fame in 2013. His public career did not conclude when he finished his council term. He was a director of the NRMA from 2003 to 2015 and was an avid advocate for motorists right across New South Wales.
But Michael's greatest achievement in life was his family, and it was his great love and passion. Michael was married to Annette for 57 years. That is such an extraordinary achievement. Annette will be comforted by their five children—Francene, Kieran, Madeline, Daniel and Claire—today, and all of their families and the entire shire community will embrace them.
Michael was a man of great stature, tremendous values and very special faith. He would write to me often, particularly as he was ill over the last year, and he would always give me lots of encouragement and occasional discerning wisdom, challenging various ideas and so on, but he always finished every single email with 'God bless you and your family.' I say to his family today, God bless you. Thank you, Michael Tynan, for your great service to this country. You have been an extraordinary Australian; you have supported our community through thick and thin. Your charitable generosity has no peer in the shire and we will miss you terribly. To all those who are gathering together at Our Lady Star of the Sea Miranda today, I am sorry I cannot be there with you. Michael would want me to be at work today. That is what he would be saying to me today. My wife, Jenny, will be there with you and I wish the whole community all the best as you gather together to grieve and to mourn—but do not forget to celebrate a life well lived by a great Australian and a great pioneer. I thank the House.
The following responses to petitions have been received:
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I wish to make a statement concerning the progress of the committee's inquiry into surrogacy. The desire to have a child is one held by many Australians. For some, conceiving a child naturally is not an option and this may drive them to consider other options. Some turn to surrogacy either within our shores or overseas. In Australia altruistic surrogacy, where reasonable costs are reimbursed to the surrogate mother, is permitted in some states.
However, many Australians have headed overseas to seek commercial surrogacy arrangements, which are illegal in this country. Commercial surrogacy is or has been facilitated through private clinics in countries such as Thailand, India, Nepal and Cambodia. In some of those countries, the practice is now illegal. The women who have become surrogates are often from disadvantaged backgrounds and there is evidence that, in some cases, they may have had little choice in the matter. Some may have been forced to have multiple children, all at a time convenient to the intending parents who have paid for the privilege of having a child. Surrogate mothers may have few protections in countries where such practices are either unregulated or where health care may be inadequate. The risks to their personal health and that of the child are very high. Surrogate mothers may have few protections in countries where such practices are unregulated or where health care may be inadequate. The risks to their personal health and that of the child are very high. Once they are unable to bear any more children they are left to fend for themselves.
Two well-publicised cases involving Australians—that of baby Gammy in Thailand and that of a twin that was left behind in India—raised concerns and a range of issues regarding child protection and exploitation. Such cases highlight that the future welfare of the child must be paramount and must be the paramount consideration when we determine how to regulate surrogacy.
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, which I chair, has been tasked with considering the regulatory and legislative aspects of international and domestic surrogacy arrangements. The inquiry follows a preliminary roundtable that we held on the issue in early 2015. From the Commonwealth's perspective, the inquiry involves a wide range of considerations such as family law, immigration, citizenship, passports and child support matters. We as a nation have a range of international obligations, especially regarding the protection of children, which we have to uphold.
Last week the committee heard from Chief Judge John Pascoe who heads Australia's contribution to the work of The Hague in considering an international convention around surrogacy. Chief Judge Justice Pascoe spoke of the need to develop a nationally consistent approach to surrogacy which considers the rights of all participants in the process, aiming particularly to reduce exploitation and ensure surrogacy arrangements are not sought by those seeking to harm children. He proposed that in cases concerning surrogate children automatic presumption to an Australian passport should not apply.
Domestically, every state and territory, with the exception of the Northern Territory, has some form of legislation regarding surrogacy. Though not consistent in their application or reach, the common thread amongst this legislation is the determination of who can be deemed to be a parent of a child. In 2009 the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, released a discussion paper aimed at harmonising domestic legislation, but it was not progressed. Recently a number of state and territory jurisdictions have moved to review or strengthen their legislative response to surrogacy.
My committee will consider a number of things, including Australia's regional responsibility in relation to surrogacy. It will particularly consider possible exploitation and unethical practices of clinics overseas. We will consider how best to protect the rights of any child in any arrangement here or overseas, and I have to say we will be particularly looking at the rights of children to know their biological heritage. We are going to be looking at harmonising Australia's varied domestic legislation. We are going to be looking at a possible responsible approach to domestic surrogacy arrangements. The committee intends to present its report to this Parliament in June.
Given the complexities of legislative, jurisdictional and ethical issues, as well as international obligations, we anticipate that our report will set forward a clear direction for the nation on domestic surrogacy arrangements. No doubt legislative change will be required, as will the agreement of all states and territories, if we are going to do this. These things do not come quickly or easily. Surrogacy is ultimately about the best interests of the child. The committee considers that a public debate on a national approach is long overdue.
I thank the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the honourable member for Dawson, for his update regarding the inquiry into surrogacy and wish to make a brief statement. As deputy chair of the committee, the commencement of this inquiry in full is most welcome. The committee first resolved to inquire into surrogacy arrangements in Australia in December 2014 in response to a matter arising from the 2013-14 annual report of the Family Law Council and reported with recommendations to launch a full inquiry in March 2015 following preliminary roundtable discussions.
As detailed by the chair, surrogacy is both legislatively and ethically complex. It is becoming more complex as legal frameworks lose pace with advances in reproductive technology and the rapid growth of international commercial surrogacy. Issues that could not have been anticipated as little as 30 years ago—the separation, for example, of biological, social and legal parentage; and, in some cases, the nexus of commerce and parenthood—must be addressed. Despite the complexity, international commercial surrogacy arrangements being entered into by Australians continue to grow via a number of countries, chiefly Thailand, India, Nepal and Cambodia. Over recent years Australia has experienced a sharp rise in parents commissioning international commercial surrogacy arrangements. Clearly, many Australian couples have a strong desire to have a biologically related child and will go to great lengths to have one. In India alone, the number of Australian couples seeking surrogate mothers rose over 300 per cent over the five-year period from 2008 to 2012—from 126 children to 519 children.
The commercial and competitive practice in this unregulated market is giving rise to a range of human rights issues. Associate Professor of Law of Indiana University, Margaret Ryznar, warned of the dangers of the current situation and suggested the conditions were creating an unwholesome race to the bottom, where commissioning parents may engage in 'rampant forum shopping … seeking the best surrogacy prices and conditions'.
The human rights and roles of all parties in the arrangement must be considered: the surrogate mother, the surrogate child and the commissioning parents. As detailed by Chief Justice Pascoe of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia:
The difficulty in discussing the issue of surrogacy is reconciling each of the parties' roles in the arrangement. Each is critical and should be equal, however this is not the reality. As such, there is a real risk that human rights may be ignored for the sake of completion of the contract.
Surrogate mothers may have very few protections in countries either where such practices are unregulated or where health care may be inadequate, putting the health of both the mother and the child in danger. Moreover, in the terms of many surrogacy contracts, the surrogate mother is effectively renting out her womb and, in doing so, often relinquishes her rights to autonomy over her body. The child's rights are compromised also, as the newborn has no way of being able to defend itself. And, because of the commercial nature of the arrangements, the child is effectively traded as goods.
Likewise, children want to know their parentage and identity, and Australia recognises the right of a child to 'preserve his or her identity', but the lack of access to genetic information and information regarding identity further increases the risks of children born in this largely unregulated international market. As again described by Chief Judge Pascoe, when it comes to the commissioning parents, they:
… are either seen as saints or devils as their role is either to highlight the blessing of having a child to love, nurture, and protect as a result of surrogacy, or to exploit women and children.
Chief Justice Pascoe and many others have spoken of the need to develop a nationally consistent approach to surrogacy which considers the rights and roles of all participants in the process. In a speech last year, the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Justice Diana Bryant, suggested that commercial surrogacy should be regulated and allowed in Australia to stop the exploitation of poor women and to protect the legal status of children caught up in the booming overseas surrogacy trade. There is no doubt that legislative change is required in Australia to address this complex issue, and I do hope, as anticipated, that this inquiry into surrogacy will outline the best path to follow for all parties.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I think the opening statement should lie with Mr Iemma, the then Premier of New South Wales. He said, 'I cannot go another day with people's deaths on my conscience, people that simply don't have to die.' As you walk out of this chamber you will see a magnificent portrait of Charlie McDonald, the first member for Kennedy. Charlie McDonald was, I think, the second or third Speaker of this parliament. He left this chamber dying of pneumoconiosis, which is superfine dust particles getting into your lungs—because we did not damp down in mining in those days. We did not care how many people died—one in 30 died that went down the mines. Of the 2,000 men that worked for more than two years digging the sewerage ditches in Sydney, all 2,000 died of pneumoconiosis. This parliament did nothing about it—nothing whatsoever. If you doubt, Andrew Fisher's—the third Prime Minister of Australia—dad died of dust on the lungs, and he left parliament dying of dust on the lungs. The first Labor head of state in the world, Anderson Dawson, left the Queensland parliament dying of dust on the lungs. We also went into the cane fields, and one in 30 died from Weil's disease, but nobody cared.
In those days we had a wonderful political movement called the Labor movement. It brought to us a national recognition, a nationalism; it also brought to us fairness so that we did not have to die in the cane fields and we did not have to die down the mines. That is what it achieved for us. Those people that did those wonderful things for us would turn in their graves if they saw the ALP government in Queensland tenaciously fighting so that we should continue to die from lung disease. The rest of the world is different. This is the thing that fascinates me the most about this place. I watched the American debates, and I was so embarrassed because their intellectual tone was so incredibly higher than what we hear here in Australia. It is almost like kindergarten here compared with those debates in the United States. And I am ashamed to say that on behalf of my country. Paul Barry's famous comment was that modern politicians are characterised by the vacuous lucidity of the modern television politician. With a scintilla of intellectual reflection, this rubbish would be perishing in the immolation of its own overwhelming ignorance.
Why is the rest of the world different? Here is a map. Except of course for the oil-producing nations, all of the world is coloured in. Every single country on earth has biofuels or ethanol legislation because they do not want to see their people dying of lung disease. That map was all grey before the findings were released from the 16-year studies in California. And there it is: the most distinguished medical journal in the world. There are the figures, there are the graphs. If you double the amount of small particles then you double the number of deaths from lung disease and pulmonary diseases for the heart and lungs. You double it. It seems to me that nobody cares—except Mr Iemma.
The good news is that in Queensland we have had a breakthrough. We thank the LNP for supporting the KP initiative. We have been driving this again and again, for years and years, and at long last there is a majority in that party—a very narrow majority; but God bless them anyway. One of them is the member for Dawson—God bless him. Something is going to be done about it. I held up to the chief medical officer for Queensland this picture of two lungs. I said, 'Is that actually accurate?' and he said, 'Absolutely.' If you live in Sydney all your life, then you probably will have a lung that looks like this one in the picture I am holding up. If you live in Parkes or Forbes, or Roma or Dalby, then, pretty typically, your lung will look like this other one in the other picture I am holding up. So the people in this place are quite happy for those people. I might add that the Gold Coast in Queensland is one of the worst areas in Australia for this problem.
Let me move on. The lot-feeding industry in Queensland is raging with horror at the thought of ethanol being introduced. Why is the lot-feeding industry raging in horror? I will tell you. It is because it raises the price of grain. There are about 10 lot feeders in Australia—they do about 90 per cent of the lot feeding—almost all of them foreign owned corporations. So should we be looking after the 15,000 grain growers in Australia or the nine foreign corporations that are doing the lot feeding in Australia? Who should we be looking after?
As the member for Dawson would be well aware, we have been closing a sugar mill every two years. Our industry is slowly grinding out of existence. The great juggernaut of the Queensland economy for its entire history has been sugar. The politics of that state have been written around sugar, but we are grinding it out of existence. Why? Very simply, we are doing so because Brazil, in the late eighties and early nineties, moved to ethanol. That meant that 70 per cent of their sugarcane was going into an ethanol stream that paid $420 a tonne. All of our sugarcane was going into the sugar stream—which only paid $340 a tonne. Clearly the Brazilians cross-subsidise. Our sugar industry in Australian does not, because our dumb government has a muzzle on our sugar industry representatives. The American sugar industry took Brazil to the world court and the Brazilians said, 'We have no oil and every country is entitled to have its own indigenous source of oil.' The world court threw the case out. They did not even hear the case, because of course Brazil is entitled to that. We now have a situation in Australia where we have no oil. But are we doing anything about it? No way are we doing anything about it. No, we believe in free markets!
The honourable member for Moncrieff comes from Mareeba. Mareeba is on the top of the Mitchell River. It is bigger and has more water in it than the Murray-Darling. The Murray-Darling produces 60 per cent of Australia's agriculture—almost all from irrigation. We can do that in the member for Moncrieff's area. We can do that on the Mitchell River. How many farms are there on the Mitchell River? Even though most of it is in my electorate, I do not know of a single farm on the Mitchell River. I am sure there are some, but I do not know any. How long will the rest of the world put up with the simple greediness or peculiarity of the Australian people—that they will sit on these vast resources and do nothing with them?
The United States moved very aggressively in the area of fuel security. They were sick of the situation in the Middle East, so they have moved to capping of their underground supplies, they have moved to shale oil and they have moved to ethanol in a big way. They are far and away the biggest producer of ethanol in the world now. In Europe, you would not be able to buy a new car that is not E20. They must be able to take 20 per cent biofuels. That is the situation in Europe. Japan, China and India are all on five per cent targets over the next seven or eight years. The Americans have moved to ethanol for electricity as well.
There are two fascinating aspects of this. First people said, 'Your car will break down.' You have to hand it to the car industry, getting the Australian people to believe that your car would break down. I always say to people: 'You go to the movies. Every single movie is made in Hollywood, Los Angeles. You can see 100,000 cars on the beltway. Where are all the broken-down ones?' They are on 11 per cent on average in California. Where are all the broken-down cars in California, Brazil, Europe, India, China and Japan?
(Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.
The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the documents I referred to.
Leave granted.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the importance of a robust and clear legal system that allows for timely judicial review and certainty for investors and the community alike;
(b) the latest legal challenge brought by the Melbourne based Australian Conservation Foundation to the development of the Galilee Basin is another cynical attempt to abuse due process;
(c) ongoing ‘green’ lawfare is holding Queensland families to ransom and jeopardising Australia’s reputation as a place to do business; and
(d) that rather than protecting the environment, the replacement of the Galilee Basin’s lower emission coal by higher emission coal from other countries could instead cause an increase in global emissions; and
(2) calls on the Australian Labor Party to support legislative amendments to close legal loopholes being exploited by ‘green’ groups.
This motion is of the utmost importance to the people of North and Central Queensland. It recognises that thousands of North Queensland families remain jobless because a small group of people do not like the industry the state's biggest job creating project operates in. A small but very vocal group of extreme greens have formed an army of ecoterrorists using any means they can to impose their own ideological agenda on Australia. One of those means is abusing the legal system, which is supposed to ensure the rule of law is observed to protect citizens' rights and freedoms—a legal system that now unfortunately is a weapon used to wage a war against capitalism, against jobs, against progress and against development. That strategy has inspired the term 'lawfare', and that term means using the law to wage warfare on jobs.
In Queensland, Adani's Carmichael mine project would employ thousands of people to build the country's largest coal mine, to expand the port at Abbott Point in my electorate and to build a railway line connecting the two. Those thousands of jobs would have been filled by now were it not for the actions of the extreme greens. Their campaign of lies, misinformation and frivolous legal action has successfully delayed those jobs for the past three years—a time that has seen 20,000 jobs or more lost from Queensland's resources sector. If these were the actions of a competitor company or a competing country, that competitor would probably be in very hot water indeed. Because these extremists pretend to be environmental activists they get off scot free. Because they make this false connection to the Great Barrier Reef their gross tactics are accepted by many. But holding the reef to ransom is like putting a gun to society's head and saying 'Give me what I want or the reef gets it.' That is an act of ecoterrorism. Their lies, misinformation, slander and the frivolous legal action attacking a company for the sake of furthering an ideological cause can only be described as terrorism if you look at the criminal code.
The actions of the extreme greens have nothing to do with environmentalism but they have everything to do with the ideology of socialism. They do not want to fix climate change—they want to use climate change alarmism as an excuse for wealth redistribution, as an excuse for deindustrialisation, as an excuse to close down the mining industry. They do not want someone who has worked two jobs for 20 years to have more money than someone who cannot be bothered getting up off the couch to collect their dole cheque. They want those hard-earned savings handed over, and the easiest way to do that is to impose a big fat carbon tax on the wealthy. It does not matter that they are trashing jobs, it does not matter that they are trashing the lifestyles of many families; it does not matter to the extreme greens if their actions are trashing Australia's reputation amongst investors, amongst suppliers, amongst customers, and they do not see it as trashing our children's future either—because, they say, there is going to be equality. Our kids can be equally poor and jobless, I suppose. Their claimed justification for the lies, misinformation and lawbreaking that they undertake in the name of their ideology is wearing thin. They are clutching at straws.
The latest legal challenge to the Galilee Basin brought about by the Melbourne-based Australian Conservation Foundation claims that this development will destroy the reef. They have built an image, which has been grasped in the minds of many of the latte sippers in the south, of draglines digging up the reef to mine coal. But the coalmine is hundreds of kilometres from the nearest salt water and even further than that from the Great Barrier Reef. The extreme Greens claim expanding Abbot Point, the port that will export this coal, will kill the reef, but the truth is that dredging operations at Abbot Point are going to be 40 to 50 kilometres away from the Great Barrier Reef. The spoil that is going to be dredged up is going to be disposed of on the port's own land. That is what the extreme Greens insisted happen and that is what is being done. Yet they still oppose it; they still claim it is going to harm the reef. This last-ditch scam—that is the only word I can use: 'scam'—from the extremists is to claim that burning the coal is going to increase global emissions and therefore the reef is going to be destroyed. When you actually have a long, hard look at it, the reality is quite the opposite.
If the Carmichael coalmine project goes ahead this is what will happen. Thousands of Australian families will have jobs. Those workers will have the protection of Australia's strong labour laws and safety regulations. The high quality coal that will come out of that mine will be mined under the rigorous environmental regulations that we have in Australia, especially for this project. Most importantly, Indian coal-fired power generators will burn Australian coal instead of foreign coal, say, coming from Indonesia, where the ash content is higher. Australian coal is much higher quality than foreign coal and will produce fewer emissions than coal that has a high ash content. So the net impact is actually a lowering of emissions.
If the climate alarmists honestly believe the emissions are going to kill the reef then they should be out there picketing support for the Carmichael mine project. That is the reality. India are going to burn the coal. They have built new generators and they are going to be building more. They are going to use those generators to bring hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty, which is something else that the socialists should be barracking for. That is the reality. No matter how hard the extreme Greens wish it, they cannot change that reality with social media campaigns, a tax on the coal industry or demonising hardworking coalminers in North Queensland and Central Queensland. They cannot change the reality.
I know the extreme Greens and their fellow travellers and movements like Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative have this idea in their heads of some utopia where everything is rainbows and lollipops. I know that the Greens, particularly the Australian Greens, have this pipedream about spending trillions of dollars on health and education systems and having the most generous welfare system on this planet, but with all due respect I say to the Greens: the world you want cannot be conjured up with pixie dust and unicorn bottom burps. It will be built with jobs, not unemployment. It will require economic growth, not economic vandalism. It will be built with technological advances. That must be funded. Wasting trillions of dollars on killing economies around the world will not help. It will not help technology, it will not help the climate and it certainly will not help the thousands of families in North Queensland and Central Queensland who desperately need jobs right now.
There used to be members in this place who would compromise their socialist dreams for the sake of getting people into jobs. Unfortunately, I have to say that from what I have seen so far—and I do not want to be too critical—the Labor Party have not done anything with regard to this project and the jobs it will create, because even though the unions give them money and the unions will benefit out of this, it is going to be the Greens who dictate policy because of preferences.
The Labor Party need to understand that, while the Greens might dictate policy to them through the preference system that we have in this country, those policies are actually destroying jobs, reducing the number of workers that could become union members and drying up funds that need to be in Central Queensland and North Queensland to stimulate good, strong, sustainable local economies. In the end, if we keep with that, there will be no Labor Party. There will just be the Greens. They will overtake the Labor Party because their ideology will reach out to the hard left. What they will do is dry up all the jobs and all the hardworking union members in industries like coal.
With this motion today I am calling on the Labor Party to do the right by workers, to do the right thing by jobs in Central Queensland and North Queensland, and to support legislation, to support the government, in restoring fairness and common sense to this whole situation. I call on members opposite—and I know we have got the very good member for Moreton here, sitting at the front desk—and I call on the member for Moreton to support legislation that is going to curb lawfare and to support efforts against these acts of ecoterrorism that this movement keeps on pushing at us. I call on him and other members opposite to support jobs, get Australia back to work and to create the wealth that will fund the high standards of living that we want to have in this country. We need these jobs desperately and I hope the Labor Party gets on board with the government to get these jobs.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I rise to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Dawson, a motion that I feel very strongly about speaking against. The member for Dawson says that:
… ongoing 'green' lawfare is holding Queensland families to ransom and jeopardising Australia's reputation as a place to do business.
When the member for Dawson says 'green lawfare', what he is referring to is an Australian environmental group using the Australian judicial system, as they are quite entitled to do, to challenge a decision that the group believes will endanger Australia's environmental assets. Not just anyone or any group can bring these challenges; the relevant legislation restricts which groups can make an application. They must show that at any time within the previous two years they have engaged in a series of environmental conservation or research activities in Australia or an Australian external territory. Conservation groups do not get any monetary benefit from a successful challenge, and challenges do cost money. They are acting purely to preserve our environment; but it is stressful, it is costly and it is expensive.
Let's look at the legislation that enables these environmental groups to bring such legal challenges. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—or the EPBC Act—was brought in by that bastion of left-wing policy, the Howard government. The objects of the Howard legislation include:
… to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance; and to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources.
To achieve these objects, the act does various things, including promoting a partnership approach to environmental protection and biodiversity conservation through the involvement of the community in management planning. These are commendable objectives and it is hard to see how anyone, 15 years later, would criticise them; but that is what we have seen the member for Dawson do. Obviously, anyone who is sensible and values our precious environment would support the Howard legislation.
It was abundantly clear that the Abbott government did not value the Australian environment. The former Prime Minister Abbott, before he was taken out in the middle of the night, waged a savage attack on the environment from the moment he took office. Foreign Policy, a respected international magazine, referred to the then Prime Minister Abbott as 'the Australian environment's worst nightmare'. We have seen echoes of that today in the speech by the member for Dawson, where he talked about 'climate change alarmism', yet again doing that dog whistling suggestion that climate change is not real.
The Abbott government's record is horrendous. I remember particularly that moment on 25 June; I remember the photograph by Alex Ellinghausen of the members for Flinders, Fisher, Higgins, Sturt and Dickson celebrating at the end of the price on carbon like the weird sisters from Macbeth. I think that photo might be on their walls now as a form of celebration, but I am sure that within a decade that photograph will become a wanted poster as we track down those who did so much to sabotage a responsible response to the environment.
We also saw the Abbott government rush through environmental approvals as soon as they took office. They disallowed the endangered community listing of the River Murray from the Darling River to the sea; they reproclaimed the world's largest marine reserve system so that the managements plans that were in place would have no effect; they ripped funding from the Environmental Defender's Office, the office that allows concerned Australians to challenge environmental approval decisions; and they went backwards on climate change, making Australia a laughing stock by winning five 'fossil' awards at the climate change talks in Warsaw.
We have seen net emissions go up under the environment minister and him somehow arguing that black is white and white is black because it was a good thing that emissions went up. They asked UNESCO to delist 74,000 hectares of World Heritage forest in Tasmania, making Australia only the third country after Oman and Tanzania to try to abandon one of its own World Heritage sites. This is in our time, in the time of the 44th Parliament—unbelievable.
And now, under new leadership but with the same policies—with the same goods to retail—we see the member for Wentworth talking a lot about his commitment to action on climate change, but the reality is that it is all talk. It is hot air only. The Abbott anti-climate-science agenda is still in full swing. It holds him completely in his thrall. What is that saying? The rabbit is always sure it is mesmerising the anaconda—at least until it is eaten. Just last week the member for Wentworth signed off on hundreds of CSIRO job losses, all but ending climate research at the CSIRO. Malcolm Turnbull's government has slashed the CSIRO's budget by $115 million. One in five employees at the CSIRO will lose their job—one in five. This is the biggest loss of jobs in the CSIRO's proud history.
This is particularly interesting given the terms of the motion put forward by the member for Dawson, a motion that notes that if the conservation group were successful in their challenge to the approval for the Adani Carmichael mine it may result in:
… rather than protecting the environment, the replacement of the Galilee Basin’s lower emission coal by higher emission coal from other countries could instead cause an increase in global emissions …
But with the CSIRO's workforce depleted we may never know, because there will be no-one to track the emissions. The director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science says that these job cuts at the CSIRO will result in a catastrophic reduction in our capacity to assess present and future climate change. And when you are the driest continent—when you are the continent that has fantastic farmers who rely on this information—you are really shooting yourself in the foot. Under the Turn-bot or Abb-bull or Abbott-Turnbull government, almost 1,400 CSIRO employees have been sacked.
Ha, ha, ha!
It is not a laughing matter at all, the member for Herbert. The member for Dawson's motion talks about green lawfare holding Queensland family's to ransom. What about the families of the 1,400 CSIRO employees who no longer have employment?
But, putting our trusted scientists aside, why is this government so afraid of conservation groups? The scaremongering campaign by the government, in particular the member for Dawson, is a disgusting attack on Australians who care about our environment. We all should care about our environment. Sadly, we too often only appreciate something when it is gone. The government is afraid of conservation groups because they are looking over the shoulder of the minister responsible for environmental approvals and calling him out when he has not done his job properly.
Last year the Liberal government was extremely embarrassed that a small conservation group in Mackay challenged the decision of the minister in court. The minister made a mistake. It is that simple. But at no time prior to going to court did Minister Hunt admit that he had made a mistake. He could easily have done that at any time—said, 'Oops, sorry, let's start again.' But he did not. The member for Flinders forced the Mackay conservation group to spend lots of money taking this matter all the way to the doors of the court and then, faced with the prospect of an embarrassing loss in court, Minister Hunt finally admitted that he had actually made the mistake. A consent order was made in this matter. The member for Dawson gets on his high horse, but this was a consent order, where all the parties, including the minister, agreed that an error had been made by the minister in the approval process. If the Mackay group had not brought the challenge in court, would the minister have admitted this mistake? Would Minister Hunt have done so? I do not think so.
The government wants to prevent these groups from challenging any of their decisions. You would think from the scaremongering of the government that every decision is being challenged, but nothing could be further from the truth. Since July 2000 there have been 5,500 projects that have gone through the EPBC approval process. Of those 5,500 only 30 challenges have been made on EPBC assessed projects. Of those 30, only six have actually been successful—six out of 5,500 projects. The EPBC has hardly opened the legal floodgates to so-called vigilante groups.
One of the objects of John Howard's EPBC Act is to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance. The current provisions allowed the Mackay Conservation Group to bring this challenge. This challenge was directly related to protecting the environment—in particular, protecting two threatened species. There is currently on foot another challenge to the Adani Carmichael coalmine—the same project that the Mackay group successfully challenged. This time the Australian Conservation Foundation is challenging Minister Hunt's decision, alleging that he failed to consider whether the impact of climate pollution resulting from burning the mine's coal would be inconsistent with Australia's international obligations to protect the World Heritage listed Barrier Reef. The ACF's CEO, Kelly O'Shanassy, says, 'If it goes ahead, the Carmichael coalmine would create billions of tonnes of pollution, making climate change worse and irreversibly damaging the Great Barrier Reef.'
Clearly this is a matter of national environmental significance. The government has shown no respect for the environment or climate change science. In fact, the actions of the Turnbull government last week showed that they do not value climate change science at all. We are extremely lucky we have dedicated environmentalists in Australia tirelessly and fearlessly advocating to protect our precious environmental— (Time expired)
I am pleased to rise to speak on this motion brought forward by the member for Dawson. The issue here is not so much about the EPBC Act, as far as I am concerned. For those of us who live and operate and work in northern Australia, it is about the system that allows certain projects to be targeted. This is where we come from.
Recently I had a minister in Townsville and we were talking about why we were developing northern Australia. The thing is that we sit there and say that we want to develop northern Australia. He said, 'We should be developing southern Australia.' I said: 'But you guys already have whatever you need. You guys, when you came here in 1788, cleared your land and built your cities under different sets of circumstances. What we want is to be to operate under the same circumstances.' He asked for an example. I said, 'Where are the bauxite deposits in Victoria?' He said, 'There are none.' I said, 'Then why have you got an aluminium refinery there?' The answer is that Victoria has the dirtiest of dirty brown coal fired power. They burn brown coal and they provide cheap electricity to the system, and that way they are able to provide that sort of industry—even to the dairy industry, which is thriving in exporting to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, with massive amounts of fresh dairy going through there. The electricity provided in the Victorian system through burning brown coal is central to that.
What we need in northern Australia, especially in my part of the world, in Townsville, is two things: energy and water. We need it to be available, we need it to be affordable and we needed to be plentiful. Without those things, we cannot develop the north of Australia. We will never be a destination for industry—we will never be thought of as a destination for industry—without those things. That is why it is important to get that little bit of common sense around the use of the legal system to halt development. The thing that bugs the living daylights out of me and the thing that people in northern Australia do not like is when you have people in Victoria, on the north coast of Sydney and even in Mackay raising these objections. They do not know what is going on out there. They have a philosophical bent against something and are able to use the legal system to stop it. They are not held responsible for the costs of doing so.
The member for Moreton spoke about the Carmichael mine. This is where I want to take the Carmichael mine. With the Carmichael mine being our base tenant, if they are able to develop a baseload power station, we can then get industry up and running in Townsville. Using that as our base, we will open ourselves up to all the renewable energy projects in Australia—wind farms, solar farms—with the ability to connect into the system. We can talk about raising the Burdekin dam wall and hydroelectricity going from there. We can talk about irrigation for building Hell's Gate dam and the irrigation going into the system to provide extra areas for developing crops which will go into ethanol production. All that stuff is about renewable. Everything we do in this country affects our environment. It is how we manage those things. The member for Moreton went on and on about what we are doing with the CSIRO. In my first term, I went to a number of stop work meetings called by friends of mine who work at CSIRO about what the then Labor government was doing to the pay packets and the jobs at CSIRO.
Opposition is easy. I found that out in my last term. It is easy to sit there and poke your finger and say what work we should be doing. But when you are in government you have to make decisions and you have got to be able to live with them. I think what CSIRO are doing now is about how we handle the consequences of climate change, how we work within the system. No matter what we do within our environment it affects our environment. It is about what we do to manage those things. The very thought that something 400 kilometres west of the Great Dividing Range could destroy the Great Barrier Reef just beggars belief. These people have no idea of how far away these things are. They have no idea of what a decentralised state is. They have no idea of what the state of Queensland is. They sit in Victoria in front of their wood fires and with their brown coal fired power and tell us what we should be doing—please!
I of course rise to speak against this motion. In the course of the last 2½ years we have seen investment in our resources sector plummet. We have seen job losses. We have seen mines close. We have seen the most extreme pressure being placed on our resources sector. I might add that this is not as a consequence of decisions this government has made but as a consequence of the global marketplace in which we operate as a nation. I would make this point to all members: it behoves us all to stand behind our resources sector and not seek political advantage out of it. When I sit in this place and hear the member for Dawson speaking of eco-terrorists, extreme greens and ideological terrorism it really worries me because it is that kind of extreme language from those who oppose the resources sector that causes great concern; and now, increasingly, I hear it from those who would have us believe that they are doing it on behalf of the resources sector when they are actually doing it on behalf of their own petty politics.
Getting projects up these days is very difficult indeed. In order to do it, not only must we pass the most rigorous environmental tests but we must also do it with a broad base of community support. And we need to accept that our community has views about resource development. I am strongly pro resource development. I have made it very clear that I support the Adani project. I have made it very clear that I believe the Carmichael mine has a very strong role to play. More important than that, India needs coal, India needs energy, and if India wishes to buy Australian coal we have a lot of coal to sell. The Adani coalmine would generate around 60 million tonnes of coal per year. That 60 million tonnes of coal would sit comfortably within the roughly 400 million tonnes of coal that Australia produces each year.
Australia contributes to global greenhouse emissions through our coal production. Globally, coal production sits at about eight billion tonnes. Most coal is produced within national boundaries and consumed within national boundaries. China produces roughly half of the globe's coal production and consumes roughly half of the globe's coal production. America produces about 10 per cent. Australia produces about five per cent of global coal production and exports substantially less than five per cent. What that means is that our numbers, although relatively small, are significant. We need to accept their significance in the context of climate change and global CO2 production. We need a viable and sustainable policy framework that includes the environmental laws that protect our environment; they do not protect miners; they protect our environment, and that is what they are designed to do.
The member for Dawson said Labor had done nothing to argue in favour of coalmining. Since Adani was proposed, every time I have had the opportunity I have spoken in favour of coalmining. And I speak strongly in favour of Adani—with proper approvals, with proper consideration, having been through the proper local, state and Commonwealth agencies, and for those approvals to be made in a proper, sound and sustainable way. That is being pro resources. That is not about taking the low road of political argument and targeting environmentalists as extremists or targeting people who oppose coalmining. I may not agree with their views but they have every right to oppose coalmining and I have every right to speak in favour of coalmining.
Our country will continue to export coal for the better part of the next century. The globe will continue to see coal produce the lion's share of electricity production for the foreseeable future, probably the next 50 years. But we need to accept the importance of climate change and we need to be moving our globe to a more sustainable, cleaner form of energy production—and carbon capture and storage if necessary—and we are on that path.
I thank my colleague the member for Dawson for his motion. My electorate of Capricornia and the electorate of Dawson join each other in Mackay and run inland towards the western coal belt. In fact, it was only just before Christmas that the member for Dawson and I were in the Central Queensland coalfields discussing important issues that impact on local jobs.
As you have heard today, the motion being discussed focuses on the latest legal challenge brought by the Melbourne based Australian Conservation Foundation to stop development of coal and minerals in the Galilee Basin in Queensland. Ongoing so-called green lawfare is tying up progress on major developments, in some cases for years. Such action by radical green lobbyists, who don't even live in Queensland, is holding Central Queensland families to ransom. It also jeopardises Australia's reputation as a place to invest and do business. Today's motion further calls on the Labor Party to support legislative amendments to close legal loopholes being exploited by green groups.
In my own electorate of Capricornia, one example where green lawfare is costing jobs and holding back the economy is the case of the Adani coalmining project at the Carmichael mine, about 160 kilometres west of Clermont. This project has the potential to provide up to 10,000 jobs over its lifetime—jobs that are much needed for families in Central Queensland because in recent years up to 12,000 jobs have been lost on the coal belt.
Green lawfare amounts to somebody living outside the state being able to take court action to deliberately halt the project when it has no bearing on their own regional home base. By preventing jobs growth these people are essentially taking bread off the table of hardworking Central Queensland workers, who need an income to feed, clothe, house and educate their families.
Our government decided to protect Australian jobs by removing a provision from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, otherwise known as the EPBC Act. This is the provision that allowed radical green activists to engage in vigilante litigation to stop important economic projects like Adani. As the Attorney-General has previously highlighted, the EPBC Act provides a red carpet for radical activists to use aggressive litigation tactics to disrupt and sabotage important projects. The Attorney-General expressed concern about the emerging trend by green groups and other organisations using the court system to sabotage important economic projects, sacrificing the jobs of tens of thousands of Australians in the process.
The activists themselves have declared that their objective is to use the courts to bring developments to a standstill. In their own report titled Stopping the Australian coal export boom these activists declare that it is their strategy to delay and disrupt and to reduce the financial viability of key infrastructure projects, including ports, rail and mines, through court litigation. When raising concerns about this, Queensland Resources Council Chief Executive Michael Roche said that legal loopholes had paved the way for anti-coal activists to delay billions of dollars in investment and thousands of jobs.
Labor too must stand up for the workers they claim to represent and not side with the innercity greens and the Australian Greens at the expense of the jobs of tens of thousands of Australians. In my electorate of Capricornia the Labor candidate is so weak she has not yet ruled out doing a preference deal with such Greens—a deal that would be a slap in the face for local coal workers and local towns.
It is also a fact that Australian black coal from Queensland is the most energy efficient in the world in terms of energy and kinetic output per unit of coal burned. Therefore, the most efficient outcome for the world's environment is to use more Queensland coal and less coal from other places such as Africa, Indonesia and the USA.
I do not support this motion by the member for Dawson. The environmental law is there to protect the environment and to protect endangered species. The member for Dawson's own party brought it in. All environmental groups ask is that mining companies, agribusiness and so on do not break the law, just as environment groups and ordinary citizens are expected to abide by the law. If companies abide by the law, there is no issue. All the provisions that the member for Dawson complaints about do is give people a right to take action if the environment law is not being complied with. The implication in the member for Dawson's motion is that mining and other companies should not have to comply with the environmental law—that they should be able to break it with impunity.
The member for Dawson may not care about the black throated finch, but I do. It is a beautiful little bird. We should not push it to the edge of extinction in our quest for ever-increasing material wealth. Mining booms come and go but black throated finches do not. If the black throated finch becomes extinct, there is no way to bring it back. We have the EPBC Act precisely because we have learnt from the mistakes of the past and we should support it and strengthen it, not undermine and white-ant it.
Since being passed by the Howard government 16 years ago the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act has been the overriding national environmental protection law, including throughout the mining boom, and environment groups are required to operate within this law. Since the act commenced in the year 2000 there have been approximately 5,500 projects referred to the minister under the environmental impact assessment provisions. Of those projects around 1,500 have been assessed as requiring formal assessment and approval. Around 33 actions have been commenced in the Federal Court by third parties in relation to the EPBC Act's environmental impact assessment process. The proceedings taken by third parties have related to only 22 projects that had been referred under the environmental impact assessment process, so this means that third-party appeals to the Federal Court affected only 0.4 of one per cent of all projects referred under the legislation.
Environmental advocacy is in the public interest. Environmental advocacy enhances environmental decision making and accountability and drives policy reform to protect the environment. The Australia Institute conducted national polling and found that 68 per cent of Australians support environmental advocacy. While 27 per cent said environmental groups had too much influence in public debates, 34 per cent said they had not enough influence. By contrast, most people—62 per cent—said big business and 58 per cent said mining companies had too much influence.
While six in 10 Australians are concerned that big business and mining companies have too much influence, the coalition enthusiastically promotes them and even encourages them to become political activists and fight government policy. In the last five years the mining industry has spent $340 million on lobby groups and more on registered lobbyists and in-house lobbyists. The government is arguing to silence environmental activists while on the other hand it wants industry lobbyists to become activists—the irony, the double standard!
Section 487 was designed to address issues of standing, a legal term that broadly means an individual's or group's right to challenge an approval on the basis that they are either affected by it or have a special interest in the outcome. It does not provide for open standing, whereby anyone can bring an action for review, but it does authorise representative standing in which groups can act on behalf of an affected community. This is a crucial component of a national environmental act that seeks to promote rigorous and effective environmental review for approvals that, potentially, affect matters of national environmental significance, such as the development of Queensland's Galilee Basin coal deposits.
Removing section 487 will stop environmental groups from acting on behalf of affected communities and performing their important function as a watchdog. As The Australia Institute has highlighted, advocacy is essential for a well-functioning democracy, providing for those most affected by government decisions to be involved in policy formation, helping keep government accountable to the wider community and counterbalancing the influence of corporate organisations over government decision making.
Robust environmental review by focused, engaged, representative organisations, like the Mackay Conservation Group and the Australian Conservation Foundation, has never been more important. Rolling back the legal provisions that allow this to happen would be a backward step.
I am pleased to rise in support of the member for Dawson's motion on law and the environment that he brings to the House today. Our legal system, clearly, needs revision and a complete overhaul when it comes to environmental approvals, and the wishy-washy manner in which people can object needs to be addressed immediately.
We have a system that harms our attractiveness to developers by sending them into a, potentially, disruptive process. By allowing such a drawn-out process we erode the country's ability to grow its economy. Anti-environment? Certainly not. There is a place and time when people can object to any sort of project, anywhere in Australia. They have the mechanisms and processes to object before the Queensland government, the other state governments or the Australian government approves such mining adventures.
Adani have spent over $120 million trying to get approval for their mine in the Galilee Basin. This has cost Australia a lot in investment, potential jobs—some 10,000 jobs over the life of the mine—and uncertainty in the minds of landholders, job seekers, contractors, investments and so on for the whole region. Once approval has been made by the government this just opens up another case of legal action. These protracted proceedings are often seen in the appeals court during the development process. Who is being protected and who is being supported? It is certainly not those who rely on these developments: jobs for all, bread on the table and a roof over their heads.
Recently, I was talking to people from Western Queensland, in the Alpha region, regarding Adani. What they had to say to me was, 'Let's get on with the job. The bush is dying. We need these jobs.' Otherwise, you can kiss goodbye to these rural towns that have survived over the years more on the sheep's back. Now they are looking for the mine to restore those towns to their former glory. It is certainly not the landholders. The landholders have had a noose around their neck, not knowing what to do, while all this legal action is taken by green groups and others to stop mining. These people, quite often, have never been on the site. They have come from the south and are protesting. About what?
The black-throated finch does have wings, and if there is one finch living on the mining site it will soon move to another site. It is not stupid. We have heard a lot about koala reserves and habitats. I know a mine that was held up for many years because of koalas and the offsets for koalas. These koalas had never lived in this particular mining area and had never been seen there by white man. Even the Aboriginals had said, 'This is not koala territory; why do we need to have a koala offset reserve?'
These are the issues. I believe in lock the gate. I also believe in open the gate. For those who can benefit from actions of opening the gate and getting royalties, that is fine. I know that other countries, like Japan, Korea and India—and China, to a degree—need our coal reserves to provide cheap electricity to their people who are not so well off. This is the question we have to ask ourselves as Australians. We have the natural resources. Do we keep them to ourselves and not export them to countries in greater need than us?
Before the House, this morning, on the motion regarding law and the environment, we have propositions that are profoundly illiberal, from a Liberal government, and also deeply cynical, which raise some interesting and challenging questions for all of us as law-makers. The member for Wills's contribution touched on this in saying that the proposition really advanced by the member for Dawson is: can a particular set of companies break existing laws with impunity?
There is perhaps a wider question that underpins the debate that is taking place in the House this morning, and that is: as law-makers, should we be engaged in running commentary about matters which are the subject of judicial proceedings, or should we perhaps be more concerned with putting in place appropriate legal frameworks? This is a debate that is replete with false issues, and that has been demonstrated in the language of government members in contributing to this debate this morning. It is profoundly unhelpful to technical questions which go to the standing of third parties to intervene in proceedings under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to talk of ecoterrorists and extremists, to make allegations along the lines—as the member for Dawson did—about people who pretend to be environmental activists, to talk consistently in terms of lies and slanders and to talk about ideology as if it is a one-way street, because the propositions the member for Dawson advances are deeply ideological and evidence a very limited understanding of the role of this place and, in particular, what our civil society and, indeed, our democracy can offer. And so we see the false issues, the conflating of ideology with outcomes.
At the core of this debate are questions of the operation of our democracy and questions of evidence that need to be brought forward in it, as well as these matters of principle, and these are the two matters that I will briefly touch upon. It is clear on the evidence, subject to review by the Productivity Commission, and, indeed, the work of the coalition dominated Senate committee back in the 1990s which led to the current provision, section 487 of the EPBC Act, that these standing provisions have effectively balanced the relevant interests, not only those of landowners, those seeking to develop land and exploit resources and the wider community—the present generation—but also, critically, as the member for Wills touched upon, those future generations who deserve to inherit the same beautiful and pristine environment that we enjoy today. The present provision, of course introduced by that well-known eco-terrorist John Howard, recognises also that there is such a thing as civil society and that this is a good and, indeed, a vital thing in our democracy, which makes the language and the tenor of this debate so very troubling.
I mentioned also, as well as this matter of principle, the question of evidence. One might assume, in listening to the contributions of government members, that there is a major barrier to investment in the form of this provision. Of course, the reverse is true. We have just come through the greatest mining boom in Australia's history and, as the member for Wills touched upon, there have been over 5,000 referrals under the broad EPBC Act framework but only 33 third-party applications brought relating to 22 projects over the 15- or 16-year life of these provisions—a tiny amount.
These provisions have brought certainty. They have effectively balanced interests. They have not always given blank cheques to the interests the member for Dawson is representing, and it is somewhat disturbing to hear a member of this government talk about jobs. This is a government that has a lamentable record when it comes to supporting employment, particularly secure employment, and I look forward to the contributions of government members in the next debate on that matter here. This side of the House recognises that there is a public interest in having a provision such as the current standing provision in the EPBC Act. It is not just us who say so; it is the Productivity Commission, who have recognised in the review of major project approvals that there is a public interest in allowing third parties to bring judicial review applications, as it allows the legality of the process to be enforced, providing an important safety valve in the system. Safety valves are critical in this system.
These approval decisions are decisions that we cannot afford to give wrong. We also cannot afford to trash our democracy in the interests of self-interested parties, and we should be very slow to remove the capacity of the Australian community at large to have its say on these matters. (Time expired)
Debate interrupted.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the ongoing media reports and Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) findings into the exploitation of Working Holiday visa (subclass 417) holders, Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457) holders and international students;
(b) nationwide monitoring by the FWO has uncovered suspected exploitation in 20 per cent of 560 migrant Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457) worker cases examined between October 2014 and January 2015;
(c) the FWO said 'migrant workers complaints of mistreatment had soared in recent years, and sponsorship breaches were often deliberate acts of exploitation by unscrupulous employers';
(d) exploitation by employers has been identified in various industries including but not limited to construction, hospitality, cleaning, food processing, agriculture, the marketing and promotions sector, privately owned childcare centres and kindergartens, shopping trolley collectors and postal service contractors;
(e) many of these workers are low paid and low skilled, and are on Temporary Work (Skilled) visas (subclass 457), Working Holiday visas (subclass 417) or student visas; and
(f) this unconscionable conduct is widespread and is creating a sub class of workers that does not just hurt the employees; it puts at risk the pay and working conditions of all Australians;
(2) acknowledges the:
(a) recent hard work of the FWO to monitor, investigate, and expose potential breaches of the work visa program and Australian workplace laws; and
(b) proactive role the Australian union movement has played to highlight and expose unconscionable conduct by some employers and industries exploiting temporary visa workers;
(3) condemns the Government's:
(a) inaction to immediately address and implement the findings of recent FWO reports in relation to this matter; and
(b) recent moves to relax regulations for bringing in temporary visa workers, instead of toughening the rules; and
(4) calls on the Government to:
(a) immediately strengthen the work visa safeguards it has deliberately relaxed to make it easier for companies to hire overseas workers; and
(b) ensure that Australia's work visa program has robust safeguards in place to protect all workers and is not being used as a back door avenue to source cheap labour.
Weekly, if not daily, we are hearing time and time again more media reports about the exploitation of workers who are here on temporary work visas, quite often as guest workers. Over the weekend there was more commentary about the horrible case of 7-Eleven workers. We heard in a Senate inquiry on Friday that about 20,000 workers are expected to have been underpaid by 7-Eleven franchisees but yet only 2,000 have come forward. In that inquiry on Friday many of the people involved on the wage fairness panel established by 7-Eleven, including Allan Fels, said that it was because of fear of coming forward. Workers that they had met with are intimidated, threatened with having their visas cancelled and with being deported, threatened with violence—one even spoke out about being beaten—for coming forward to complain about underpayments.
This is not an isolated incident. Since this government was elected there has been incident after incident reported in our media and incident after incident investigated by the Fair Work Ombudsman, yet what we have seen from this government has been inaction. When the Fair Work Ombudsman released their report last year where they found that one in five people that they audited who are here on 457 visas was being underpaid, this government did not act to clean up the area. They did not put in proper safeguards to protect these workers. Instead, they established what they called a ministerial working group to try to tackle this issue of worker exploitation.
What we learned today in the media is that this group has apparently only met three times, but a key member of the committee does not have any record of the meetings. The Minister for Justice cannot recall and, through freedom of information, does not have any records of attending this working group. This is not the actions of a government that is taking this issue seriously. There is a need for action in this area, not just to protect the overseas workers that we have here, whether they be workers on skilled visas, whether they be workers on backpacker visas—the 417 visas—or whether they be international students with work rights, but because they are also undermining Australian wages and conditions.
In this motion I particularly want to highlight the calls on government to immediately strengthen the work visa safeguards, not to relax them as they did when this government was first elected. Yes, it was two immigration ministers ago and, yes, the minister at that time is now the Treasurer—he has had two role changes—but, when Minister Morrison relaxed the safeguards, Labor said that it would result in more workers being exploited. Sadly, that appears to be the case.
The motion also calls for a visa system with robust safeguards in place to protect all workers to ensure that they are not being used as a backdoor avenue to source cheap labour—and that is what we are seeing. In the case of 7-Eleven, workers were being paid half pay instead of full pay. Workers have been forced to get ABNs to work in the cleaning industry in sham contracting arrangements, as we have seen in the case of Myers and other cases. We have seen workers involved in pizza delivery and trucking and even workers involved in working for Australia Post being exploited. These are just the high-profile cases that have been brought to the attention of the Australian media as well as the unions involved in these industries. The government should be condemned for their inaction to immediately address and implement the findings of the recent Fair Work Ombudsman's report. It is now February 2016 and the government have had this report since last year but have failed to act to implement its recommendations. Recent moves to relax regulations have seen more workers coming into this country and being exploited instead of a toughening up of the rules.
Any worker in this country should be treated with respect and dignity. At the moment, this is not being offered to people who are here as temporary workers. All workers in Australia should be treated the same and receive the same wages and conditions. The government must act to clean up this area.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
I am absolutely delighted to speak on this motion moved by the member for Bendigo. I am also incredibly pleased to see her sudden interest in this issue—an issue, I might add, that has been going around in circles for literally decades. As the motion states, complaints have indeed soared, but that is only because awareness of the issue has increased with the coalition's action. It is this government that is taking action.
Since I was elected in 2013, I have been making a lot of noise about this exact problem. Where has the member for Bendigo been? Where have you been? Labor had six years in government and they did absolutely nothing—actually, that is not quite true. They had an another inquiry. They knew about the problems. There have been countless reports and inquiries to examine this issue over the years and they all say the same thing, but, as I have said time and time again, we do not need another review or inquiry; those resources would be better spent on enforcement action. Individually, agencies like the Fair Work Ombudsman were toothless tigers, but there is now better coordination with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Employment and Training.
With the introduction of Taskforce Cadena in May last year, which is something that I lobbied long and hard for, with the unanimous support of my National Party colleagues, we are finally seeing action. Within a month of operating, the multi-jurisdictional task force was successful with a number of raids, catching 38 illegal workers. Following investigations by Taskforce Cadena, the Fair Work Ombudsman is now able to pursue one Emmanuel Bani, who is accused of underpaying 22 workers from Vanuatu to the tune of $77,649 for fruit- and vegetable-picking jobs in Queensland. Geoffrey and Jane Smith of the Bundaberg branch of the Australian South Sea Islander Association brought the plight of these men to my attention in 2014. I met with some of these workers and heard firsthand about the appalling way that they were treated. I referred the matter, and the departments of employment and immigration intervened to recover the men's passports and secure them work with a reliable employer. The unskilled seasonal workers program is closely monitored and there are safeguards in place to ensure agents know their obligations and workers know their rights. Agents must be registered. Where the real exploitation occurs is in cases where people have overstayed their visas or are working here illegally and the agents are not properly registered.
But, just as we are making some headway on stamping out rogue labour hire operators and ensuring that foreign workers are being treated fairly, we have proposed changes to the tax-free threshold. In his budget speech, the then Treasurer, Joe Hockey, said that from 1 July working holiday-makers, not seasonal workers, would lose the tax-free threshold of $18,200 and be taxed at 32½ per cent from the first dollar they earn. I wrote to the Treasurer and explained that local fruit and vegetable growers and backpacker hostels had expressed concern that this could be the nail in the coffin of the entire industry. Not only could this lead to a reduction in backpackers coming to Australia to work but it could force more workers and contractors into what I call the 'seedy underbelly'. One backpacker hostel, which employs about 100 backpackers per week during harvest time, said the proposed changes were 'casting dark shadows over the potential benefits that backpackers bring to Bundaberg'. Working holiday-makers are not just a travelling workforce; they are a vital component of our tourism industry. You can tell that the member for Bendigo does not understand the needs of the agricultural sector because, in my electorate, the electorate of Hinkler, growers require a large labour force of unskilled workers at short notice; otherwise the crops would sit and rot on the ground. Their whole season's income would be lost and possible future agreements with their buyers could be put in jeopardy.
We hear the member for Bendigo scaremongering about Australian jobs being taken, but this government has introduced measures to ensure Australian workers are given the first opportunity for employment. With the expansion of the seasonal worker program and the introduction of free trade agreements, employers must demonstrate that they have tested the Australian jobs market first. The member for Bendigo talks about the proactive role of the Australian union movement, and I acknowledge there is an important place in the workplace for the protection of workers' rights, but I can honestly say that, in my experience, the unions are only interested in representing their members. They refer large numbers of exploited workers through to my office, saying they cannot help them because they are not members of the union. The unions only became interested in protecting these workers' rights when Four Corners reported on the issue, and I have repeated my concerns over and over again, many times in this place. But this is about human decency, and, regardless of the nationality of the worker, they all have the same rights and obligations while they are working here in Australia.
In Queensland, the Queensland Labor government have recognised that this is an issue and have launched another inquiry. The former federal Labor government launched an inquiry and a Senate inquiry, but it is this government that has launched Taskforce Cadena. We are making headway and we will fix this problem.
I wish at the outset to congratulate the member for Bendigo for highlighting this very important issue and the government's inertia temporary work visa on tackling it. It appears that there is an alarming increase in exploitation of workers on temporary work visas in Australia—in particular, people on holiday visas, temporary work visas, international students and people under the 416 visa program, the seasonal workers program. There have been many publicised cases in recent months: workers at 7-Eleven being horribly exploited on temporary visas; Myer subcontractors employing cleaners on sham contracts; Pizza Hut delivery drivers being paid as little as $6 an hour; and Baiada Poultry involved in some alleged underpayment of wages as well.
Underpayment of migrant workers is not only illegal; it is immoral as well. It also gives Australia a bad international reputation. Over the longer term it can do damage to our economy; through lost revenue in terms of income tax, but also in terms of Australia getting an unsavoury reputation and then ultimately harming demand and income tax revenue throughout Australia.
I want to highlight the seasonal workers program. This was a program that was established to offer opportunities for Pacific Island nations to send workers to Australia to work in our agricultural and horticultural sectors. They would get an opportunity to have much higher wages, and hopefully better working conditions, and be able to send income back to their home countries. So there was a social element to the seasonal workers program.
Unfortunately in recent months we have seen a number of cases highlighted of exploitation of workers under this program. In Robinvale in Victoria, a company called PlantGrowPick is currently subject to Fair Work Ombudsman investigations for allegedly underpaying a group of Fijian workers. They were allegedly paid $1.20 an hour. These workers eventually had had enough and they left. They went to the airport and went home because they were sick of being exploited. Allegedly they were not allowed to leave the camp that they were living at unsupervised. They even were not allowed to sing on the job while they were picking fruit.
Then there is the case of Marooychy Sunshine. They are currently being investigated by Fair Work Australia for underpayment of 22 workers from Vanuatu. These workers were allegedly underpaid $77,649. It happens that one of those workers is the son of the head of the Department of Labour in Vanuatu. So this employer probably picked the wrong person to underpay. Again that goes to the issue of international reputation for Australia. Here is the son of the Commissioner of Labour in Vanuatu being underpaid—and on terrible conditions—by Australian employers.
Clearly there is an issue here, particularly with respect to labour hire companies that are set up for the purposes of making a quick buck. There might be not many assets behind the company and once there are attempts to investigate them—what do you know?—the company has gone bankrupt and another one is set up in similar circumstances. So the response from the government on this has been unfortunately quite weak—in fact, there has been deadly silence. The response had really been to just import more workers; we are seeing a ballooning in the number of 457 visa workers coming to this country.
In contrast, Labor is listening. Labor has been consulting with people in these circumstances and we are listening. Recently Bill Shorten and Brendan O'Connor released Labor's policy on protecting workers. It involves a number of new policies to tackle these problems, including tougher penalties for failing to pay workers properly, tripling the penalties for people who underpay wages, and cracking down on sham contracting. In the Productivity Commission report this was identified as a serious issue and the Productivity Commission said:
It seems to be too easy under the current tests for an employer to escape prosecution for sham contracting.
Labor will change that test at law to ensure that it is a 'reasonable person' test rather than the employer being able to plead that they did not know. We will also introduce new penalties for phoenix employers and specific penalties for exploitation of temporary overseas workers. (Time expired)
I found the previous contribution a little amusing. The member talked about Labor 'now listening'. I guess Labor has done nothing before on this matter; it is nice to think they are now starting to listen. And they are going to release a policy some time soon. The fact is that for many years, the first years of most of these policies—seasonal workforce visas, overseas work available to students and so on—Labor was in power, and they did very little. In fact, the numbers blossomed and bloomed under Labor's regime. They did little when there was exploitation. It was not the rampant and horrific massive exploitation referred to by the member for Bendigo in her motion, but there was some. Unfortunately, with human nature involved, there is always the odd person who will try to exploit others in an effort to make financial gain.
But let me talk about what this government has done, because we know that the reputation of Australia as a destination for employment is very important. In my area of Murray we are dependent on international backpackers and overseas workers who are on 457 visas. We depend on them to work in our piggeries, in our abattoirs, in horticulture, and in fruit picking, pruning and packing. We are unfortunately an area that has high youth unemployment—over 27 per cent—but at the same time we are dependent on these international workers.
So there is no way we are going to see the reputation of Australia trashed because unions or the Labor Party think it resonates among some of their voters. We want to make sure the realities are presented. Already this year there has been a 10.2 per cent decline in overseas visa applications from holiday-makers, and that is a disappointment to us. We have to make sure that the reputation of Australia is not trashed by the opposition, but that the realities are presented.
Let me remind everybody that, in 2014, when we were in government, an independent review into the integrity of the subclass 457 visa program was commissioned by this government, and the government's response to this review was released in March 2014. The review did not find that there was widespread misuse of the program. It found that there were some loopholes which could be exploited by unscrupulous employers, and so we immediately moved to close those loopholes with the Migration Amendment (Charging for a Migration Outcome) Bill 2015. That was to ensure that no-one could receive payment for facilitating a visa, and we responded to the concerns by amending the Migration Act 1958 to make it unlawful for a person to receive a benefit in return for a migration outcome. The bill passed the Australian parliament on Wednesday, 25 November 2015.
Why didn't Labor do something about that? Not a squeak; not a move. It was up to the coalition to make those amendments.
Under the coalition we have new criminal penalties of up to two years' imprisonment or penalties of up to $324,000 for each instance applying to people engaging in this type of unlawful conduct, including sponsors of visa applicants, visa holders or third parties. Labor did nothing about that. They talk about, in their future policy, increasing penalties. Well, good for them—but have a look at what we have already done.
As our legislation shows, if there is a problem we respond to it. Unfortunately, as I repeat, Labor presided over any problems in the system for six years but did nothing. It reminds me a little bit of the White Australia policy which was a hallmark of the new federation, unfortunately, in this country in 1901. That was all about the Labor Party of the day trying to make sure that any migrant labour coming into our country was only to look like them—white, of Anglo-Irish extraction. We are over that. We are over the xenophobic Labor policy moves of the Labor government. We want to welcome into this country any worker who fits the visa qualifications and categories. We depend on that labour in horticulture and agriculture.
I also want to commend this government for very recently introducing the new dairy industry labour agreement. That is very, very important for dairying. It will be closely scrutinised, in all cases, looking for the skills that are needed in this country and also testing the market first. This is what our coalition always does.
A recent ABC report in the aftermath of the collapse of a Queensland enterprise gave a chilling indication of the agenda of the Turnbull government as to the Australian workforce. They spoke of the impact upon a nearby factory, on 200 workers who would lose their jobs because of the collapse of this enterprise. They did not speak about Australian workers of Lebanese, Sierra Leonean or German extraction; they spoke of the impact upon 200-odd Taiwanese workers, because the local factory affected clearly only employed Taiwanese workers. And that is the reality of which we speak today.
You would think, from hearing the previous speaker, that she had never ever had a discussion with the member for Hinkler on her own side who, unlike her, understands what is going on in the Australian workforce. It is all right for her to say that this is a 'minimal' problem et cetera. She is obviously in line with the previous minister for immigration, Mr Morrison, who, in the document Robust new foundations, spoke of the need to fast-track employers' rights to bring foreign workers into the country. He spoke of the way we could facilitate approvals. He spoke of the need to have easier English requirements for people. He also moved in relation to the 10 per cent reduction in the $53,900 maximum income threshold. In that release, he gave very cursory, minimal attention to reports by the Ombudsman in regard to the already existing problems.
When daily reports in our media and from the trade union movement, and from people like the member for Bendigo, exposed what was happening—the very drastic levels of underpayment and exploitation in this country—James Massola could report in The Sydney Morning Herald on 15 October 2015 that the employment minister, Michaelia Cash, was going to 'urgently' do something about the government's problem. She was going to put together a 'ministerial working group'. We have heard that the Minister for Justice, who is one of these high-powered intellectual giants on the committee, does not even know about its meetings. We have a situation where they were going to investigate illegal practices, and, it is interesting to note, had a 'very firm commitment' as to this very serious problem—they were going to make sure they did nothing until after the next elections.
Some time before that, the Monash University Centre for Population and Urban Research in August 2014 spoke of 417 workers 'along with students and other temporary visa holders … proving to be ferocious competitors for the same entry-level jobs that Australian resident youth are seeking'. Despite that very strong acknowledgement from Australian academia and in our media, this government says, 'We'll have a high-powered working group into this, and, after the next election, we might do something about this.'
Already, in June 2014, there were 711,240 temporary workers with work rights in this country. The level of complaints from them about the way they were treated by employers was three times the rate amongst the rest of the Australian workforce. The Fair Work Ombudsman—a government authority—as of the announcement in October 2015 by Minister Cash, could already indicate that they had had 6,000 requests for assistance by employees, and that $4 million had already been collected on their behalf.
So, whether it is the reports on 7-Eleven—the most notorious instance—or of a Darwin company paying backpackers $5 an hour, or of a blueberry business in northern New South Wales being ordered to pay back $46,000 in unpaid wages to nearly 140 seasonal workers, this is rampant. This—unlike the previous speaker's analysis—is not a minor, occasional, often accidental outcome. We are seeing a clear strategy by the Turnbull government, and its predecessor the Abbott regime, to make sure that the Australian workforce is undermined by a large number of imported temporary workers—whether they be students, 417 visa holders or backpackers. It all adds up to one reality: they are here to minimise the ability of workers to stand up for themselves. They are here to give employers the whip hand. They are here to make sure that the conditions of people in this country are driven down.
I will just remind the previous speaker: when she speaks about Labor earlier this century and what Labor did in the White Australia policy, maybe she could read the comments of Alfred Deakin with regard to why we should not have Japanese in this country.
I rise certainly to support this motion and to raise a few additional areas of concern. I want to address the comments by the previous Liberal speaker—normally a very sensible person. They made absolutely absurd suggestions, attempting to suggest that it is racist to be concerned about the circumstances in which people who are brought into this country find themselves or be concerned as to whether there are going to be a sufficient number of jobs for our children and our grandchildren, and that this is somehow an ethnically based concern. Can I say two things over and over again: it is the union movement that has consistently stood up for workers overseas; it is the union movement that has been most active in prosecuting injustice done to workers in this country, including foreign workers in this country. The MUA has taken a role in protecting foreign work crews in the ships of shame. The international union movement funds the development of trade unions in countries like Cambodia where it is absolutely essential for the development of fairness on those workforces. So do not come into this place and talk about racism in the union movement. The union movement has been doing a magnificent job in this country and internationally to get justice for workers.
In relation to guest workers, I would like to think that I had a big involvement in getting a guest worker program available for East Timorese workers in the Kimberley at a time when we could not get workers, and that had the active support of the trade union movement in Western Australia and across Australia generally. The union movement has always understood that where we have a shortage of labour we invite foreign labour in, but we want to make sure those conditions are fair and that we ensure that we have enough jobs for people at home.
There are two things about this. Minister Michaelia Cash—and we hear this repeated over and over again—talks about the decline in the number of 457 visas. You would expect a decline in the number of 457 visas as unemployment has grown under the watch of this government. One of the things we are not really seeing is how the visas interact with each other. We have more and more people contacting us from the worksite saying, 'Guys, it's not the 457 visas that people are coming in under; it's the different visa classes.' The 400 visa class is particularly interesting. If we look at the figures of the 400 visa class, which is for temporary work, a short stay—supposedly for people of a high skill level—in 2012-13 there were 6,000 of those visas. By last year that figure had increased to 54,000 visas, and we are on track this year for over 70,000 visas. In fact, the 400 visa is fast outpacing the 457 visa. I suspect that what we are in fact seeing is people moving away for very much identical purposes. They are moving away from the 457, which everyone knows about, to the other visa classes, including the 400 visa class. I do not think the people of Australia are really being given an accurate picture about what is happening.
The second point I want to make relates to who is investigating the conduct of the employers who are bringing people in under these temporary visas. I was very disappointed to see that in relation to the Samsung matter—the quite notorious Samsung matter where young people were brought in notionally as engineers and professionals and put in jobs that were basically anything other than professional jobs, and they were made to work 84 hours a week and were underpaid—the investigation into the scandal was conducted by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. For some reason, it did not go to the Fair Work Commission; it went to the department of immigration. Unsurprisingly, the department of immigration found only two aspects of noncompliance, whereas the information that we have from a whistleblower who was involved in HR in the firm is that this was systemic. It was understood by the workers in the Pilbara that this was happening, and yet we had a whitewash on the matter. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
I have received two messages from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I rise to speak in opposition to the measures contained in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2015. The measures that are proposed contain a lack of consultation and display quite a lack of an evidence base, quite frankly, not to mention that the substance of the proposed changes includes a wide range of highly inequitable changes that will hurt hardworking Australians who are being punished by the Liberal government.
The bill does a range of things including reintroducing measures from the 2015 budget—specifically, changes to the proportional payment of pensions outside Australia. It also reintroduces measures contained in the 2014 budget—the hit that it was—that the government has been unable to legislate: abolition of the pensioner education supplement and abolition of the education entry payment.
It also reintroduces a measure contained in the 2014 budget, previously introduced in the No. 4 bill and reintroduced in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015, which was negated at the second reading stage in the Senate on 9 September 2015. These changes are: maintain at level for three years the income-free areas for all working-age allowances other than student payments and for parenting payment single from a new start date of 1 July 2016; and maintain at level for three years the income-free areas and other means test thresholds for student payments, including the student income bank limits, from 1 January 2016.
As the shadow minister for citizenship and multiculturalism, I want to specifically focus on the changes to the proportional payment of pensions outside Australia. That is because of the impact that this measure will have on people from migrant backgrounds. I believe that this government has grossly misunderstood and underestimated the impact that this is going to have on a substantial number of people in our community and the outcry that is going to arise as a result. As shadow minister and member for Jagajaga has stated, Labor will not be supporting this bill and this most unfair measure that has already resulted, as I have said, in an outpouring of opposition from many organisations and the community in general.
I will now turn specifically to the proportional payment of pensions outside Australia. Travelling overseas in retirement is often the reward for working hard your entire life, and it is under threat from this government through this bill. Australia is a migrant country, a country enriched by the contributions of those from all over the world. Indeed, about one in four Australians were born overseas, and it is often the case that in retirement these Australians plan on visiting the place of their birth for a holiday or to see loved ones. Currently, pensioners can stay overseas for 26 weeks and receive their full pension. Following that time, the pension is reduced to a rate that depends on the number of years the pensioner has worked in Australia. Under the government's proposal, from January 2017 that 26 weeks will be reduced to six weeks, after which a pension recipient's payment will be proportionalised. After six weeks the payment will be adjusted according to the length of the pensioner's Australian working-life residence.
I find it difficult to believe that the government can even be certain about the costing of this proposal. There have been huge assumptions seemingly made about the deterrence impact of this measure. I look forward to further scrutiny of these provisions in the near future. It appears that the savings measures contained in this bill have been derived from the breach. There are questions about this that many soon-to-be-affected people are rightly asking me.
I understand travel is expensive and so when Australian pensioners who have relocated travel overseas to see elderly relatives or perhaps visit their children or grandchildren or go to their home village they want to do so for a longer period. I think that is fair enough. That is why Labor will not support this harsh measure which punishes Australians who have worked hard their entire lives and want to enjoy their retirement.
I also think this measure completely ignores the significant contribution this cohort of people have made to our society. Put simply, it is a cruel and punitive measure. This decision, in essence, creates a two-tier system. It unfairly targets Australian pensioners who have family overseas. We know nearly 40 per cent of those receiving the age pension were not born in Australia, but they have worked hard and contributed to our society and now are going to be punished because they want to visit loved ones overseas.
As the member for Cunningham would well know, particularly when you are looking at established migrant communities, these are people who have maintained strong roots in their country of birth. Travelling back there is something that they look forward to. They do not do it on a regular basis, I would say, but certainly on a reasonable basis. Particularly if you are going to be travelling to the Northern Hemisphere, you are going to want to stay for a reasonable period of time. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that people will do this. People do. People in my family do it, and I know the member for Cunningham has many constituents who are in the same position.
That's right.
I have been listening to the community and relevant stakeholder organisations about this measure. I am left wondering: who in fact did the government consult before proposing this measure? Who did they consult? Let's look, for example, at the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Council of Australia. FECCA is very well respected. It noted in its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee:
FECCA believes that there is a substantial equity issue with a measure that treats migrants differently to those born in Australia. All migrants contribute not only to Australia’s economy and rich cultural diversity. There is no rationale for this action to treat some citizens differently from others. FECCA strongly opposes these discriminatory measures.
We in the Labor Party agree. We believe that older Australians who have worked hard their entire lives and contributed to the social and economic success of this country deserve to be able to travel overseas in retirement for a reasonable period without being penalised by the measures proposed in this bill. It appears the Prime Minister and those opposite disagree, but I can say here that Labor will stand up for these pensioners and oppose this most unfair measure because we believe Australian pensioners should not be punished for wanting to enjoy their retirement.
In my own community and around the country many people have expressed graves concerns regarding this harsh measure. Some constituents of mine from the suburb of Prospect wrote to me recently saying:
We have only two daughters—both of whom live overseas—and it is not much fun at our age to fly long-haul flights just to share time with our children. I would like Scott Morrison to try doing this in economy seating—28 hours door to door—and then to be penalised even further.
As well as this, I recently addressed a roundtable, organised by the very hardworking member for Calwell, with some of Melbourne's Turkish community who also mentioned the negative impact this would have on their parents, grandparents and extended families. Again, I would caution those opposite. It is not just those who will be directly impacted by this measure, the pensioners, who have expressed concerns. There is a palpable sense in the community that people do not want this to happen to their parents. There is anger in the community that the government would even think about proposing this sort of measure.
On that note, I want to mention an article from The Voice of the Maltese which reads:
One of our readers who came to Australia from Malta in the early 1950s and who did not want to be named, said the changes were "unnecessary if not stupid".
The reader went on:
It's a kind of discrimination towards migrants and a special worry to the Maltese.
To digress, in the electorate of Greenway we have a very large Maltese community. Many of the people in that have been very well established for some time. The suburb of Pendle Hill, in fact, was known for a very long time as 'little Malta'. I continue quoting:
You want to go Malta because in your twilight years … you want to spend some time with your close relatives before it's too late …
I also note the submission from the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of New South Wales on this most unfortunate measure:
This 77 percent reduction in the amount of time will negatively impact people who visit their country of origin to see friends and relatives for longer periods of time. Those who travel to care for friends and relatives (or to be cared for themselves) will be particularly affected.
This change will not achieve substantial savings (particularly when the savings to Medicare and aged care when someone is overseas and not using these systems are factored in) but will be detrimental to pensioners who need to spend time outside of Australia.
The Australian Council of Social Services also opposes this measure, noting:
We have specific concerns about people on low incomes, particularly those born overseas, reliant on the full pension who may need to travel to fulfil family or other responsibilities for extended periods (including the provision of care, or to obtain care and support for themselves that is not available in Australia).
It is for these many reasons that Labor oppose this measure and the bill as a whole. We will always put people first; unlike the government, who see—and will continue to see—Australian pensioners as nothing more than a burden. It is a shameful cash grab by this out-of-touch Prime Minister, from some the most vulnerable in our community—people who, as I have said, have worked hard their whole lives and deserve to enjoy their retirement.
In closing, I want to mention something that was recently pointed out to me by a local constituent at one of my mobile offices. It was about older people from migrant communities and older people in general people, but this person was speaking as someone who has lived in Australia for a very long time. The economic contribution that older people make in this country to our society continues to be underestimated and even ignored by this government. The contribution that they make in areas such as child care and the fact that they often become the caregivers for their grandchildren, as well as go then to shops and purchase local services, mean that two parents can often be out working and making an economic contribution. I say that those older Australians are making not only a social contribution but a very valuable economic contribution to our society. To see so many of them discriminated against and being potentially penalised in such a downright mean manner according to the measures proposed in this bill is, I believe, an absolute disgrace. We are going to see communities up in arms about this. The government has grossly underestimated the opposition to this, and Labor will oppose this bill.
I would like to commence my contribution to the debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2015 where the member for Greenway ended hers, and that is by saying that I have been approached by older people in my community on many occasions—and on an increasing number of occasions in recent times—because they have become very distressed about the way that the government has treated them. They have made the same statement to me—that they have made an enormous economic contribution to Australia throughout their working life; they have paid their taxes; they have always worked; they now support their family and provide child care, as the member for Greenway was talking about; and they still engage in the community, work as volunteers and do so many different things to support not only their family but the community and our Australian society. They have felt very marginalised by the Abbott-Turnbull government.
An ongoing theme through all the amendments to the social security legislation is that the government has been targeting the most vulnerable people in our community and particularly older people. If I have one message to those on the other side of this House, it is: value the older people in your communities, value the contribution they have made in the past and value what they are still contributing to our society. When you as members of a government and when the Prime Minister as head of that government and the Treasurer are looking for savings, do not immediately go to pensioners and older Australians to bring about those savings. Look wider. Maybe you need to look a little bit at some of the superannuation loopholes that exist and some of the loopholes that multinational companies are exploiting, rather than targeting pensioners. I need to put on the record too that every single change which the government makes within the area of pensions and every single change that it makes which impacts on the lives of older Australians actually creates feelings of insecurity, uncertainty and vulnerability. Those older Australians really feel marginalised by this government.
In the last election, many older Australians supported the Abbott-Turnbull government, but they have become extremely disillusioned by the actions of this government and the changes it has made. I would be happy if they were not disillusioned and they still could enjoy the things that they were enjoying before the last election. But, unfortunately, the Abbott-Turnbull government has waged a vendetta against older Australians, and I am terribly, terribly disappointed about it.
If I could turn to the legislation that we have before us today, there are three main aspects of it. I will start with the aspect that the member for Greenway was talking about—that is, the fact that the government is looking at reducing the time that certain pensioners can stay overseas and still receive their full pension from 26 weeks to six weeks. This has created a lot of concern in my electorate. A lot of people in the Shortland electorate were either born overseas or have families overseas. I have been approached by a significant number of pensioners who have raised this issue with me, particularly in relation to the area of caring. I very recently had a constituent come to see me to talk about how she has an ailing parent overseas and her fear that the changes to the legislation will impact her pension, which she totally relies on for financial support. She is very, very concerned about this. Once again, this measure is creating anxiety, uncertainty and fear, and I know in electorates like that of the member for Greenway that this would be magnified by hundredfolds.
The cuts in this bill originated with former Prime Minister Tony Abbott; they were in his unfair budget, which we have all heard so much about. People thought the current Prime Minister would actually change things, be a little more receptive and understand that people rely on the government to create certainty and for financial support. They thought that he would understand, but they have been extremely disappointed. When I am out at the shopping centres, as I have been, I have had people come up to me and point out that they thought Prime Minister Turnbull would be different from Prime Minister Abbott. They thought he would be more compassionate. They thought he would understand the difficulties that pensioners and families were confronted with each and every day. The message that they have given me is that the government and the Prime Minister have changed but every key policy is still exactly the same—and that is what they do not like.
They do not like the fact that the government is targeting the most vulnerable people in the community, particularly the measure that goes to the heart of reducing the time that people can spend overseas and still receive their full pension. It is having an enormous impact on communities throughout Australia, and the government needs to understand this. The government needs to understand the personal and cultural implications of this measure rather than just pushing ahead with it and seeing social security and vulnerable people as a quick fix when it comes to plugging up their budget deficit—which, I might add, has tripled since they came to power; it increases each and every day. We find with this government that there is a lot of talk about budget black holes, but that hole is getting so deep that we cannot see the bottom of it. The only way that the government is looking to address the budget deficit is by attacking the most vulnerable people in our community. Quite frankly, as a member of parliament who represents a lot of older people, I find that totally unacceptable. I believe that in the Shortland electorate, which has the 9th oldest demographic in the country, people have been very disturbed by the way that the government has been targeting older people.
I now want to touch on the abolition of the pensioner education supplement. This supplement is between $31 and $61 a fortnight and is determined by the type of course and the level of study that a person undertakes. It helps in particular people on disability support pensions and carers payment who are studying. I would like to put this in perspective: I previously worked as a rehabilitation counsellor, with people who had disabilities and who were keen to retrain in an area in which they could work and which would be within their physical capabilities. These were generally people who had worked in a more manual or physical occupation before injuring themselves. This sort of supplement helps them when they are studying: it makes it much more affordable. If the government pushes this measure through it will mean that 41,30 people will lose this supplement. There is no surprise to this, I suppose, in that three-quarters of the recipients are women and this government's policies in the area of women has not been the best. The number of women on the frontbench and the number of women involved in key decision areas has not improved under this government. We know that, yet again, this measure will impact women.
The other measure in the bill is the abolition of the education entry payment. Around 87,000 people received this payment back in 2013-14. It is a payment of $2,008 a year for the purpose of assisting people with study costs. When you are on a pension or any form of income support, you struggle to get the dollars to be able to study. We should be assisting people in every way we possibly can, but this government is more inclined to put in place barriers and disincentives for people wanting to undertake studies that will then lead them to entering the workforce. We hear a lot of talk from those on the other side about the best form of welfare being work. We all agree with that. I agree with that 100 per cent. But, along the way, before you can actually access work, there is a pathway to work and that pathway involves study and training. Unfortunately, this government is not prepared to help people traverse that pathway.
I would have to say that I am really disappointed that we have a government that has no compassion and that lacks the understanding of the impact of its most basic decisions has on the lives of people. I cannot support this legislation; I cannot support legislation that will stop pensioners visiting and caring for their families for more than 26 weeks; I cannot support legislation that will lead to the abolition of the pension education supplement, which is so vital for those people who are undertaking studies; and I certainly cannot support legislation that is going to abolish the education entry payment. This government stands condemned for its lack of compassion and understanding.
I am speaking in opposition to this bill because it is cruel and unfair. It seeks to take benefits from some of the weakest and most vulnerable people in our community—pensioners—under the guise of repairing the budget. It seeks to remove from pensioners benefits and incentives which support their education and enable their participation in society, to keep pace with technological change and to be able to live fulfilling lives. This is lazy politics from the government. It is attacking and targeting some of the weakest and most vulnerable people in our community—people who they see as easy targets when it comes to reining in spending. These reforms are unjustified and unfair. I am intending to stand up for pensioners in the community I represent; I intend to say no and vote against these reforms.
The bill seeks to reduce access to a number of important payments that support pensioners and provide them with access to greater education and the opportunity to participate in society. The first change is to proportional payments of pensions outside Australia; the government will reduce the period from 26 weeks to six weeks that some recipients of the age and other pensions can be paid their full basic, means tested pension rate whilst they are absent from Australia. The second element of the bill is the abolition of pensioner education supplement. This is a payment of between $31 and $61 a fortnight, depending on the level of study, for the disability support pensioners and carers payments for people who are studying. The measure will see 41,130 recipients lose this supplement, and more than three-quarters of those recipients are women. So women will be disproportionately affected by this change. The third element is the abolition of the education entry payment. This is a payment goes to recipients of Newstart, parenting payment, partner or widow allowance. In 2013-14 there were around 87,000 recipients of the payment, which is $208 a year to assist people with study costs. Again, it is an unjustified change. The final element of this bill is to reintroduce measures from the 2014-15 budget but amend the starting date and maintain that level for three years the income free areas for all working age allowances and for parenting payment single for a new start date of 1 July 2016. The same applies to the income free areas and other means tested thresholds for student payments, including student income bank limits, from 1 January 2016.
As I said in my opening remarks, these reforms target some of the weakest and most vulnerable in our community—people who are on low incomes and who survive from week to week. They rely on such payments to continue to be in education and to participate in society. It is really weak that the government sees these people as easy targets. When the government talks about budget repair, it always goes after the weakest and most vulnerable in our community. That is what it is seeking to do again through this bill. I understand the need for fiscal consolidation. I understand, given the position of the budget at the moment—the weakening of the economy and the worsening of the terms of trade—that if we are going to continue to fund programs we need to raise more revenue and we need to cut expenditure. I am acutely aware of that, as are my colleagues on this side of the House. That is why Labor has agreed, over the course of the last year or so, to $20 billion worth of savings in the budget.
In achieving fiscal consolidation, the important thing is how you go about it—the approach to take in doing that and who you target in our community to raise more revenue or to cut expenditure. When it comes to the Liberals, their philosophy unfortunately is to attack the weakest and most vulnerable in our community—to attack the poorest, the people they see as the easiest target in our community. In doing so they are ignoring some of the real deficiencies that exist in our budget position. If some of these deficiencies are not tackled, they will balloon in the coming years and swallow some of the current social security expenditure. In doing this they are ignoring the real and unjustifiable tax concessions that exist for many in our community, particularly those with large superannuation balances and multinational companies which shift profits overseas before they pay tax here in Australia on their domestic operations. The Liberals do not require those who have the capacity to pay more to pay more—to pay additional revenue and ensure they are paying their fair share. These are the people the government tends to let off the hook. They say, 'No, there isn't a problem with those sorts of issues.'
There are some areas where we can raise more revenue through the budget that would not harm growth, would not be unfair and would certainly be justified in terms of people paying their fair share of tax in this country. The first is multinational companies. In figures recently released we see what some of the largest companies operating in Australia are paying in tax. In December last year, under new legislation that was introduced by the Labor government to improve tax transparency in this country, bigger companies were forced to publish and publicly reveal the amount of revenue they make in Australia and the effective rate of tax they pay. Some of the figures are quite startling, and they highlight the imbalance that exists in our taxation system. For instance, Google made $357 million in revenue in Australia last year and paid $9.2 million in tax, an effective tax rate of 2½ per cent. Apple—this is the big one—made $6.1 billion from their domestic operations in Australia last year and paid a minuscule $74 million in tax, an effective tax rate of 1.2 per cent.
Go and ask the average Australian, a tradesman who battles away from week to week to earn an income, whether they would like to pay 1.2 per cent in tax. Go and ask a PAYE income owner, an employee who works for a company, whether they would like to pay 1.2 per in cent tax. Go and ask the subcontractors, the small business men and women in this country, whether they would like to pay 1.2 per cent in tax. I know what the answer would be.
Microsoft made $567 million in revenue in Australia last year and paid $31 million in tax, an effective tax rate of 5.4 per cent. Although that is much better than those other two, in comparison to other Australians it is minuscule and it does not represent those organisations paying their fair share. What we see occurring is that a lot of those companies will shift to overseas the money they make as profits from domestic operations here in Australia in the form of loans to jurisdictions where company tax rates are not as high as they are in Australia and effectively avoid paying their fair share of tax in this country.
A person who may have a superannuation balance of more than $1 million can earn an effective income from that balance simply through the interest payments and earnings on the investments in that super. It is not unusual for someone who has a superannuation balance of more than $1 million to earn an income of $50,000 or $60,000 a year simply from that balance—not by drawing down on that balance but through the interest and income they can earn on that balance through share portfolios and the like. They pay no tax whatsoever on the income they receive from that superannuation balance. This has been identified by experts in many fields, by economists, as unsustainable in the future. Those superannuation tax concessions on high-end balances are growing, and they will eventually swallow the whole social security payment system in this country if nothing is done about it. Again, all we have got from the government is silence on this issue because they have plenty of mates who have very large superannuation balances they do not what the government to touch and ensure people pay their fair share of tax. In contrast, one of the first policies the Shorten Labor opposition released was to raise more revenue from people with more a superannuation balance of more than $1 million.
You can see the difference in philosophies when it comes to tackling the issue of fiscal consolidation. The Liberal and National parties have the trickle-down economics approach, the outdated philosophy that, if you reduce taxes for businesses, businesses will earn more profits and employ more people and the economy will grow. It sounds good in theory but throughout history it has been proven to be wrong and it does not work. We have seen classic examples of that in recent years. At the end of the day, not all those businesses reinvest those profits. In fact, a lot of them will pocket the profits and not reinvest them in the particular business they have set up and the country in which they are operating. So we get this uneven growth situation in our economy. This reduces the spending power of the majority of people in our economy. The largest group who spend in our economy are being unfairly attacked by this government with reforms such as the proposal to broaden the base of the GST and increase it to 15 per cent. These are people who work and pay taxes in our economy, and this government wants to attack them rather than tackle the big issue of unsustainable tax concessions in our community.
It has been proven that Australia's pension and welfare system operates well. It is targeted, it is means tested and it is efficient in terms of a tax transfer system. This has been identified in numerous reports by the OECD, the World Bank and the like. Australia operates an efficient and effective tax transfer system when it comes to pensions, disability support and the like. Yet we have the Liberals, with the philosophy of trickle-down economics, wanting to target those most vulnerable people in our community in terms of fiscal consolidation, and it has come up again in this bill. It was the whole focus of the government's first budget, which was a disaster when they attempted to increase the Medicare co-payment—again targeting some of the weak in our community—and their second budget, which has fallen flat and they have been unable to get through the parliament.
In conclusion, I am speaking in opposition to this bill. It attacks the most vulnerable, low-income pensioners in our community, who are seeking to better themselves by accessing education and participating in our society. Coupled with a GST, a lack of action on superannuation tax concessions and multinational tax shifting overseas, this represents this government's ideological attack on the weakest in our community and it, therefore, should be voted down.
I also rise today to join with my Labor colleagues in expressing my opposition to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2015 because the proposed budget repair measures contained in this bill target the most vulnerable people in our community by continuing this government's assault on the lives and wellbeing of the thousands of age pensioners and other welfare recipients who live in my electorate of Calwell. This bill reintroduces measures from the 2015 budget—changes to the proportional payment of pensions outside of Australia—and it also reintroduces measures in the 2014 budget, measures that the opposition will continue to oppose because they are unfair and heavy handed.
In my speech today I want to make some comments in relation to the 2015 budget measures that seek to reduce the payment of the age pension outside of Australia. This is a highly contentious issue and it has drawn widespread criticism and outrage from my constituents and from the broader migrant community, welfare agencies and non-English-speaking media for it unfairness and its implications. I want to join with the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Refugee Council of Australia and, more importantly, the many local pensioner groups and other welfare recipients in my electorate who have come out strongly in their opposition to this bill.
If this bill is passed, thousands of age pensioners in my electorate and across this country who have had fewer than 35 years living and working in Australia will have their benefits reduced if they travel overseas for more than six weeks in a year, according to the length of their Australian working life residence. Because these measures do not affect those who are born in Australia who have worked and lived in Australia for over 35 years this bill creates a discriminatory pension system that will disadvantage a very large number of Australian age pensioners for no substantive reason other than the estimated budget saving of $168.4 million over four years.
At issue here is the practice of many Australian age pensioners to travel, usually to their country of birth, for holidaying and visiting family. Presently they are able to remain overseas for a period of 26 weeks before their pension is affected. I must say that this dramatic reduction of 20 weeks has sent shock waves through our age pension community, and rightfully so. Forty per cent of those receiving the age pension were born overseas but they are Australians living in Australia who continue to maintain strong and important ties with their country of birth. A tie to ancestral homes is a human condition, which has always been encouraged and practised in this migrant multicultural country of ours. Seven million Australians were born overseas, so travel to one's country of birth to visit family is a very Australian thing to do.
If passed, the measures proposed in this bill will severely impact on the ability of Australian age pensioners to continue to travel to their country of birth because the dramatically reduced timeframe is, as many of my age pensioners have already told me, 'too short'. To further quote them: 'It is a very long trip. At our age we need time to recover and we want more time to spend with family and friends.' My age pensioners are appalled at this proposal and offended because they cannot understand why and with what logic the government wants to restrict in such a draconian, mean and discriminatory way their capacity and freedom to visit without censure.
I know my local age pension communities very well. I have all too often heard their stories of migrating to Australia, the difficulties they experienced and the lifelong pain of separation from family. They can never forget their country of birth, but they love this country and are proud Australians. Indeed, they have worked here for a large part of their working life. They are grateful for the opportunities that Australia has given them. They have raised their children here and it is their grandchildren who bring them joy and finally anchor them here in their home country Australia. But for all of them growing old brings many challenges, fears and increasing desires to reconnect with their country of birth, their past and the families and friends they left behind when they migrated to Australia.
The age pensioners in my electorate are migrants from Ireland, Britain, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Malta, Serbia, Croatia and India, just to name a few. They have strong extended family values and as a result have maintained strong emotional ties to family and friends in their country of birth. They have maintained their faith, language and cultural practices. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that in their senior years people have a tendency to revert to their mother tongue and their memories and connections to their country of birth. It is a very common part of the ageing process and, of course, we see this a lot in people who are suffering from dementia.
Everyone in this House who has an ageing community will know that quality of life affects the wellbeing of elderly people. Financial concerns, loss of their life partner, adult children who have their own families and busy lives, and a society that is not necessarily an easy and inclusive place for the migrant elderly in particular inevitably lead to isolation, depression and loneliness becoming common features of the ageing process. Being able to connect with loved ones and socialise with like-minded people who speak your language and understand you is important to mental health and wellbeing and this is the reason many of my constituents travel to their place of birth, where they often find the comfort, support and respite they need.
In most cases this is the only option they have for seeing their families because their family members cannot travel to Australia, often because our visa system is difficult and expensive. It is also the most convenient time for Australian age pensioners to travel because, having retired, they no longer have the tyranny of clocking on and clocking off. So they are grateful for the opportunity to travel, usually during Australia's winter months, to the Northern Hemisphere summer.
This travel is very much looked forward to. They enjoy seeing their family members and spending time in the villages where they were born. Often, it is to attend happy family occasions but, sadly, it also involves visiting sick and dying relatives and spending time providing emotional and moral support as well as receiving it. Receiving their age pension whilst overseas is key to enabling this travel.
The age pension is a modest amount of money. It adds up to about $20,498 for singles and between $30,903 and $33,982 for couples. I know, for a fact, that those aged pensioners who travel will skimp and save and chase the cheapest off-season fares in order to afford these holidays. Being able to stay overseas at the current 26 weeks gives them value for money and, by no stretch of the imagination, does it imply or assume that because they can travel they must be rich enough not to be eligible for the age pension.
The government has estimated the budget measures in this bill will save $168.4 million, over four years, if implemented on 1 January 2017. My constituents would like to know where the government bases these projected savings. Are they contingent on pensioners breaching by exceeding the six-week period whilst overseas? If so, this is, definitely, an unstable basis upon which to pursue budget repair. My constituents' views are that those affected by this budget measure will simply not travel, and what does the government gain, anyway? It looks to them like the government is trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.
I recently met with members of the Australian Turkish Business Council, in my electorate, and they raised this issue with me. They too cannot see where the savings are going to come from. They explained to me that their parents would likely refrain from travelling and would end up costing the Australian government more. They would be here for the Australian winter and would be more likely to use the health services, because they would 'be at the doctor's all the time'. They all agreed that this is a mean and illogical measure.
These are small-business owners, successful and hard-working Australians of Turkish background who, like their parents before them, are making a contribution to the Australian economy. They do not appreciate government measures that essentially discriminate against their elderly migrant parents and that make judgement about their loyalty to Australia and the value of their citizenship.
In an article in the English language newspaper Neos Kosmos, on Saturday, 30 January, a spokesperson for the social services minister said:
The government believes a person's retirement costs should be fairly distributed between the countries a person has spent most of their working life.
It continued:
It is the expectation that where a person has spent a proportion of their working life overseas, they will be eligible to receive a pension from that country.
Whilst this may be true for some migrants it is not the reality for many migrants from countries that do not have comparable pension policies. Where the 30-odd social security agreements are already in place, Australian age pension rates are already proportional to country-of-birth pension contributions. The truth is that Australian aged pensioners are not going back to their country of birth to live there permanently, they are going there temporarily—on a holiday—and this drastic reduction is just mean and petty. My constituents are rightfully outraged, and I stand with them by voting against this bill.
In its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, the Federation Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia said these measures are:
… a large group of people having a significantly lower level of rights than another part of the population, are inequitable and do not contribute to social cohesion within Australian society.
I agree with this assertion—and so do my constituents—and advise the government that in its search to address budget repair it should turn its attention to major tax evaders, including large corporations. The government should resist the temptation for easy options, such as attacking some of the most vulnerable groups in society.
This is not good policy and I am pleased to say that the federal Labor opposition will oppose it. Labor does not support such punitive and deeply unfair, imbalanced and discriminatory measures. I certainly do not commend this bill to the House.
I, like all my colleagues on this side of the House, absolutely oppose this Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2015 and am pleased to speak against it. I speak on behalf of many people in my community who came to Australia and made a home in recent decades. They have contributed in extraordinary ways to this country. When they retire they seek to return home for periods of time to visit family, see their homeland, perhaps visit the graves of relatives, spend time with grandchildren and see people they have not seen in a long while. It is something we should expect in a country as diverse as ours.
Once again, we see this government talk about budget repair. It is a government that has doubled the deficit since it took office 2½ years ago. It talks about budget repair by ripping away at the most vulnerable in our community. Whether it is aged pensioners, people on disability pensions or young people they are in the sights of this government. It will try to fix a government problem by transferring the problem to the budgets of some of the most vulnerable people in this community.
This bill has four dreadful measures. One is from the 2015 budget and three are rising, again—like bad smells—from the 2014 budget. All demonstrate the appalling unfairness of this government. Regardless of who is the leader of this government, after 2½ years of them we have seen, time and time again, attempts to rip away at the welfare of the most vulnerable people in this community.
The first measure was introduced by the previous Prime Minister and is back, again—well and truly owned by current Prime Minister Turnbull. It is a dreadful measure. It changes the proportional payment of pensions to people who are visiting overseas. Pensioners who have spent fewer than 35 years of their working lives in Australia will have their pensions reduced after just six weeks overseas. Currently, there is a provision in the law where, if you are overseas for more than 26 weeks, there are reductions in the pension paid to you. This bill reduces that to just six weeks, which will affect people in their retirement, people who have been looking forward to their retirement, people who have been working hard for decades and have been unable to make trips overseas, perhaps because of the cost or because of their working lives—people who have been looking forward to visiting their first home, where part of their heart remains.
We all know that so many of our migrants that come to Australia love Australia and they live here as the most extraordinary Australians. But there is a part in their heart that will always be in their first country. One of the things that makes Australia great is our connection to the world. So many pensioners—my Maltese Australians, my Turkish Australians, my Lebanese Australians, my Greek and Italian Australians and all those who have come since then from Latin America, from Asia and from Africa—expect that, once they retire and their working lives are over and they have more time, they will be able to return home for a period of time.
This clause in the bill will cause grief in my community. In a community like Parramatta where you have so many people who came to Australia and made it home, this will cause nothing less than grief. I have spoken to so many people who were looking forward to those retirement years when they could return to their first home for a period of time. We all know that when you get older economy air flights are not that comfortable, so it is quite usual for people returning home in their retirement years to spend long periods of time out of this country when they are visiting overseas. Six weeks is a short period for a retired person to visit a country that they have not seen for decades. It is ironic of this government that, if you can afford to go many times for six weeks at a time, you are not affected by this. But if you cannot afford to go many times, if you are going to have to save up and go once for a longer period of time, you are well and truly affected by this bill. So those that are least able to afford these incredibly important trips home in their retirement years will be most affected.
It is as if this government not only do not get fairness but they do not actually know who we are. We are a country that has been built on migration. Forty per cent of pensioners were born overseas, 60 per cent of us have one parent who was born overseas, 25 per cent of the population generally were born overseas and we are a richer country for it. We are richer country because of this diversity. In the years of the late sixties and early seventies, when John Gorton, Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser opened the doors and allowed the world in, we became a richer nation. There is not a language that we do not speak in my community—not one. Conflict aside, there is not a place in the world that Australians cannot walk and know it. There is not a place we cannot trade, because we have the world in us. It makes us strong. Our migrant communities that came here from other parts of the world and brought the richness of their culture and their language and their traditions—not to mention their food and their music and their fashion—are all alive and well in Parramatta. They brought things to this country that are valuable. Communities like the Maltese community worked in the factories. They were an incredible part of the workforce down at James Hardie in my electorate—and paid the health costs of that. These have been extraordinary communities that have quite often taken low skilled work in factories and held parts of this country together for decades. Now, unless they have worked here for 35 years or more, they will be impacted if they decide to visit their families for more than six weeks at a time. I urge those on the other side of this House to understand the grief this will cause and go back to your party rooms and seriously talk to your colleagues about reversing this decision. It is incredibly harsh, and it is a recipe for heartache and, in many cases, grief.
The second measure is the abolition of the education entry payment. It is also an appalling measure. The education entry payment is a payment that goes to recipients of Newstart, the parenting payment or the partner or widow allowance, and there are currently 87,000 people in receipt of this payment. It was $208 a year, intended for the purpose of assisting people with study costs. This goes back to the 2014 budget. It was originally introduced in the 2014 budget measures bill. There was no vote in the Senate. It was discharged from the Notice Paper. It was then reintroduced as the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill 2014, and there was no vote in the Senate. Now it has been reintroduced once again, so this is the third attempt by this government to put this amending legislation through the House to abolish the education entry payment.
I notice the minister's remarks that it is not a problem abolishing this because students can get help through VET FEE-HELP. Once again we have a government that loves debt—if it belongs to somebody else—and that is imposing measures on the young people of Australia, in particular, that will see them start their professional lives with thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars, of debt through the vocational education system and $100,000 debts or more if they are in the university system, if this government has its way. It is an appalling measure that should be rejected at every turn.
There is a third measure that I want to talk about: the abolition of the pensioner education supplement, which is a payment of between $31 and $61 a fortnight, depending on levels of study. It helps pensioners, mainly disability pensioners and carers, who are studying. There are 41,130 recipients who will lose their supplement if this bill passes. Three-quarters of those are women and 30 per cent are under the age of 25. This is a small supplement of between $31 and $61 a fortnight to help people, a large number of whom are on the disability pension, return to study. It is an incredibly important contribution to people who are trying to improve their lives, get back into the workforce or improve the capability in the workforce.
That is three appalling measures that are in this budget, all of which will tear away at some of the most vulnerable in the community. I strongly urge the members of parliament on the other side of this House to reconsider this bill and withdraw it for a third time.
I am pleased to follow the member for Parramatta and, previous to her, the member for Calwell in speaking against this proposed legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2015. Members on this side have made clear, speech after speech, why this bill should not be supported. If Australian people want to understand the underlying values of the Turnbull government and who the government really represent, they need look no further than the proposed legislation that comes before the parliament and the policies that the Turnbull government are pursuing—policies which, inevitably, prop up the top end of town at the expense of lower income Australians; policies which continue the Abbott government's very first unfair budget, which was indeed rejected by the Australian people and which they brought in to fix the budget blow-out, which, as the member for Parramatta pointed out only moments ago, has now doubled to nearly $38 billion. They want to fix their budget mess on the back of low- and middle-income Australians.
That is what is wrong with this bill and that is what this bill seeks to do. It is unfair, it is discriminatory, it is offensive and, quite frankly, I believe it borders on being racist. This bill seeks to cut $579 million over the next four years in payments to pensioners by cutting the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment, by freezing for three years the income-free areas and means-test thresholds for student payments and also by restricting to six weeks the period that a pensioner may be overseas before their pension is cut. The last measure in particular will affect recipients of the age pension, the wife pension, the widow B pension and the disability support pension. The proposal to limit to six weeks the length of time that a person in receipt of a pension may remain overseas before their pension is cut is particularly unfair because it applies only to those pensioners who have lived in Australia for less than 35 years. It effectively—perhaps not in every single case but effectively—targets overseas-born pensioners. It is discriminatory and it creates a two-class pension system in this country.
The criteria for eligibility for the Australian pension are clear. If the criteria are for some reason flawed or not being properly assessed or are in any way being rorted, that is a legitimate cause for review. However, if a person meets all of the necessary requirements for the aged, disability or widow pension and the pension is then approved, they should not be told how they should spend their pension or how they should live their life. If the argument is that the government wants its pension payments spent here in Australia because it supports the Australian economy, the government should lead by example and ensure that all government procurement is made in Australia, where the products or services can be sourced within Australia and are fit for purpose. Yet the government does not do that, but it expects, I suspect, everyone else and, in particular, pensioners to spend their money here.
The pensioners most likely to be overseas for more than six weeks at a time, as the member for Calwell so well articulated, are those who were born overseas and still have family members living in their country of birth. A typical scenario would be where the Australian pensioner, having migrated to Australia, spent their working life working hard, settling into this country, caring for and raising their family, and not being able to take holidays or go back to their homeland because of other essential responsibilities that they were also committed to. They were not able to go back and see friends and relatives, perhaps parents, they had left when they left their country of birth. They had not seen them for many years and it was always their plan, on retirement, to do that. They planned well ahead on the basis that, on retirement, they could not only go overseas but spend an extended period of time in order to reunite with relatives and friends whom they had not seen for many years—they wanted to spend quality time with them. Because they did have relatives and friends overseas, the trip would be affordable to them because they probably would not have to pay accommodation costs when they visited because they would stay with those relatives. So the pension that they are entitled to would sustain them during the extended period of time that they were there.
Bear in mind that these people are already pensioners themselves and have been out here for 35 years at least; they are themselves in an older age category. If they are fortunate enough to have brothers and sisters, perhaps even parents, still alive in those countries, it is very likely that their relatives are going to be in poor health. Therefore, it may well be that they want to spend an extended period of time with someone who is in a very poor state of health. It is also very likely that this is the once-in-a-lifetime trip that they will make back to their homeland and it is very likely that, after they return to Australia, they may never again see the people they have not seen for years and wish to reunite with. For all of those reasons, it is quite understandable that these are the people who are likely to be going overseas and spending more than six weeks at a time away when they do. Just as importantly, as the member for Calwell pointed out in her remarks, they cannot afford airfares backwards and forwards every six weeks.
It is for those reasons that this proposed legislation, I believe, is totally unfair. To say to someone that, if you go overseas and spend more than six weeks overseas, you may lose part or all of your pension is discriminatory. The government does not control the spending patterns or the life choices of any other pensioner group in this country. In fact there are other people who are on government pensions of one kind or another who are excluded from these conditions, and rightly so. But to say to one particular group, 'You will be included in these conditions', is totally unfair. Even welfare recipients who are placed on income management schemes do not have their total welfare payment cut.
The unfairness of this legislation also applies particularly and specifically to people on a disability pension, for they too may have their disability pension cut if they go overseas. A person with a disability is already very restricted in what they can do with their life because of their disability. Placing further restrictions on them by restricting their travel just to save a few dollars is mean and penny-pinching. The same can be said about the proposal to cut the pensioner education supplement, a supplement of between $31 and $61 a fortnight. This measure, I understand, will see some 41,130 recipients lose their supplements; and I understand that more than three-quarters of those that will lose their supplements are women.
The abolition of the education entry payment will also see about 87,000 people on Newstart, parenting payment, or partner or widow allowance lose the payment of $208 a year. In my view this is short-sightedness in the extreme. The recipients of education entry payments or education supplements are already struggling to make ends meet; that is probably why they are on a pension or support payment of one kind or another. They are doing their best to change their lives and improve their lives; but, instead of encouraging them to do so, the Turnbull government wants to make their life tougher by saying, 'We are going to take away this little bit of support that we were giving you that would perhaps have assisted you to get a better education, which in turn would ultimately lead to you having a better chance of getting back into the workforce and getting off the pension'. That is why I believe it is short-sighted. What it probably will mean is that those people who had some hope of getting back into the workforce will now remain on government assistance for longer periods of time. Nor does it do anything to create any form of encouragement for those people to improve their own lives.
Just as importantly it says a lot about the importance that this government places on education. We know that this government has cut some $30 billion from education and we know that this government's rhetoric is that money does not make any difference to the education outcomes of people. But to see the government also taking away some education support payments from people who in their older years of life were perhaps wanting to get back into the workforce just highlights how this government simply does not understand that lifting education levels in the country lifts productivity for the nation and lifts general opportunities for people who have now got a job and previously did not.
What is just as clear is that this government is obsessed with cutting payments to pensioners in this country. I have spoken on other occasions in this place about the $1.3 billion that was cut from pensioner concession payments to the states. Yes, most of the states picked up the payments in lieu of the federal government, but the cuts came from the federal government. It was a clear decision by them to hit one particular sector of the community. Then they wanted to change the indexation arrangements for pensioners in this country, which would have cost pensioners about $80 a week. They also changed the pension asset test, cutting the pension of 330,000 pensioners around this country in order to save another $2.4 billion. It is their policy to increase the pension age to 70 years of age. Then we had the farce in respect of the Medicare co-payments—'maybe $7, maybe $5'—freezing doctors' MBS payments and on it went.
Every one of those actions was aimed at reducing health expenditure on older people in this country, because they are the ones who would most likely be hit the hardest by those changes. It was just before Christmas that we had the announcement that $650 million would be cut from pathology and diagnostic services in this country. Again, who was going to be hit hard by those changes? People on low and middle incomes, many of whom are the very pensioners we are talking about in this legislation.
The last issue is the one that has been getting considerable commentary in recent weeks, and that is in respect of raising the GST. I notice that the government appears to be backpedalling on that, claiming that they never made any commitments, but it is clear to this side of parliament that it was always their intention to increase the GST, and they may still do so—perhaps after the election; they do not want to talk about it before then because they know that it hits lower and middle income householders the most and they know that it will be opposed by people across the country. They are simply looking to protect their own seats with respect to the next election. But we know it is on their agenda and if they get the opportunity at some stage in the future they will increase the GST. Again who gets hit the hardest when the GST is increased? People on low and middle incomes. The research and statistics bear that out time and time again. It is always the low and middle income people who get hit hardest by the policies of this government. This legislation is just another typical example of that. It hits people who are vulnerable—and all to save a relatively small amount of money. Saving that relatively small amount of money is going to make life so much tougher for people who are already doing it tough.
That is why this side of politics has made it clear that we will not support this legislation. Just as, with the assistance of senators, we have been able to block some of these unfair and unjust moves in the past, I hope that the Senate equally opposes this legislation so that it does not get up and so that people are at least not treated so unfairly and so unjustly by this government.
I thank all the members for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2015. In closing that second reading debate, I will just take a brief moment to make a couple of comments, but particularly on the issue that seems to have gathered the most attention in that debate, which is the change to the proportionalisation rules that relate to the age pension.
The bill introduces four measures, and the first of those measures is a measure that was announced in the 2015 budget, and that is the measure that I have just spoken of: the measure that reduces the length of time that recipients of the age pension—and also a small number of other payments with unlimited portability—can continue to be paid overseas at their basic means-tested rate. In putting it in the context of the issue of fairness—and I note many of the comments that have been made by members opposite—there are some important issues of context that have to be taken into account here. One is that, obviously, we face very difficult budgetary circumstances. I have stewardship of a portfolio that represents more than a third of the Commonwealth budget—indeed, it is the third of the Commonwealth budget that is growing faster than any other part of the Commonwealth budget—and the reality is that, if we cannot find savings measures inside the social services budget, it will simply be impossible to return to surplus. So there is an imperative for any rational government that considers it an important thing to return to surplus—and I am not aware of any divergence of views across the House that it is an important thing to return to surplus. It is just a matter of economic reality that some savings have to be found inside the social services budget. That is not always an easy task. However, with an eye to trying to do that in as fair and equitable a way as possible, and with a comparison to international standards as to what is considered fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, we have made some decisions.
I think that this first measure is an example of how there are some international comparisons that are relevant. It is the case at the moment that, if you are able to avail yourself of a means-tested pension in Australia—the old age pension, that is—and you travel overseas, you can be paid a part of that pension abroad indefinitely, in effect. But there is a proportionalisation that applies to that indefinite payment. Pausing on that for a moment, Australia is one of the few nations in the world that is generous to the extent that we allow for the maintenance of a system that pays a non-contributory pension—which is what the old age pension is in Australia—abroad indefinitely, at, of course, a proportionalised rate.
This is, clearly, a savings measure. It is designed to drive sustainability into the expenses associated with the pension, and the net savings with respect to this measure are in the vicinity of $168 million.
Essentially, what has been known as the 26-week rule will be amended to a six-week rule. That rule is that, if you are a recipient of the age pension—and there are a small number of disability support pensioners who this will also apply to: those where the continuing inability to work which is assessed on the Australian standard is something that occurred whilst overseas; and there are a small number of wife pension and some widow B pension recipients who will also be subject to this change from the 26-week rule down to the six-week rule—the notion is that, at some point in time, if you are overseas and receiving an Australian pension, the amount of the pension that you receive should reflect that proportion of your working-life residence in Australia. Working-life residence is the period of time that a person has resided in Australia between the age of 16 and the pension age. So, from 1 January 2017, the rate of these pensions will be proportionalised at six weeks rather than the current 26 weeks, according to the pensioner's working-life residence. So, for instance, until the issue of this legislation, it would have been the case—and is the case today—that you would be able to stay outside of Australia for 26 weeks and receive precisely the same pension that you would have been receiving in Australia, but, after that 26-week point, proportionality would be taken into account. So if you were resident in Australia at 25 of the relevant 35 weeks, you would be paid 25 35ths of the pension that you would have otherwise received in Australia. That same method of proportionalisation will apply. It is simply that it will commence earlier—that is, after six weeks overseas rather than 26 weeks overseas. So, for instance, that will mean that a pensioner with 35 years or more of Australian work-life residence and those already exempt from the proportional payment rules will not be affected by this rule. So if you are a pensioner with more than 35 years of working-life residence in Australia then these rules will not affect you in any way, because the proportionalisation will be at 35 35ths. Pensioners overseas on the implementation date will stay under the current 26-week rule until they return to Australia, and it is subsequent trips overseas that will be under the new six-week rule.
This measure, as I have noted, does not affect the length of the portability period. The payments affected by this measure continue to be payable overseas indefinitely. Only the amount that the pensioner may receive after six weeks' absence may change. So it is the six weeks that is the key issue here. The term 'portability' simply refers to the continuation of Australian income support payments during a recipient's overseas absence. Portability policy acknowledges that travel is an integral part of modern living, but it also acknowledges that the age pension in Australia is a non-contributory scheme and that it is meant to reflect the fact that a large proportion of a person's working life has been spent in Australia rather than in another country.
On this point, it is important, I think, with respect to these issues of fairness and equity that members opposite raised, to understand that there is a very important and fundamental difference between ours and many overseas based pension schemes—and I use that word loosely because many overseas pension schemes are in fact insurance based contributory schemes, and the Australian social security system has not had one of those. The Australian income support system is residence based. It is funded from general taxation revenue. The rate of benefits paid in Australia depends on need, assessed through income and assets tests, rather than the length or amount of an individual's contribution. So it is not a system, as is the case in many other countries, where people, over the course of their working life, pay into the pot and then draw down from the pot at the end of their working life by virtue of there being an insurance based pension scheme. Ours is not contributory in that sense. It reflects time worked in Australia, and this is why we are making this rule change to six weeks.
The measure in the bill contributes to ensuring that countries share the cost of social support in retirement—and I think that is an issue that is going to become increasingly important as the international labour market becomes more fluid. This change has been made because of the budgetary circumstances that the government finds itself in and the need to return to surplus, and the need, thereby, to find some form of savings inside the social services portfolio. But there is also a fair principle at the base of this change, and that is that a person's retirement costs should be fairly distributed between the country a person has spent most of their working life in, and, where the person has divided their working life between two or more countries, each of those countries should share responsibility for the retirement costs of that person. So it is the expectation that, where a person has spent a significant proportion of their working life overseas, they will be also eligible to receive a pension from that country. Indeed, Australia now has 30 international social security agreements around the world to support people living and working in more than one country, and they have been hard-won agreements over many years. Generally the agreements that I am speaking of—those 30 international social security agreements—allow Australian residents to maximise their income by helping them to claim payments from other countries where they have spent part of their working life as well as claim a pension or part-pension in the Australian jurisdiction where they have also spent part of their working life.
It is very important to note that Australia is one of the few countries in the world which pays a non-contributory pension abroad indefinitely. So, when we talk about fairness and equity, of all the nations on earth we are one of the very few whose generosity extends to a non-contributory pension scheme that is still applied to you when you travel abroad indefinitely. Indeed, Canada and New Zealand are the only other examples of countries that do this and they require you to have worked in Canada or New Zealand for 40 and 45 years respectively to receive a full rate of pension. The measure presently before the House acknowledges the residence based nature of the Australian social security system.
The bill also takes the opportunity to reintroduce some other measures from the 2014 budget. I will briefly move on to those. Two of the reintroduced measures are to cease the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment. The pensioner education supplement was introduced in 1987 to assist, in essence, single parents with the ongoing costs of education. At the time, this was in recognition of the notable difficulties that single parents experienced when obtaining employment after being in receipt of what was then the sole parent pension for up to 16 years. Since then, eligibility has been selectively extended. I must note here that, despite its name, the pensioner education supplement is not available to people receiving the age pension. Having read many of the contributions of members opposite, it appears to me to be either the inference or the understanding of some of the individuals who spoke that the pensioner education supplement is a supplement paid to age pensioners. That is not correct. The most common payment type whose recipient also receives the pensioner education supplement—that is, people who receive the supplement—are generally on parenting payment single. That represents nearly half, about 45 per cent. Others are on the disability support pension and some are on the carer payment.
The education entry payment is an annual lump sum payment which was introduced in 1993 to help remove financial barriers to education by providing assistance to certain long-term payment recipients with the up-front costs of study when they begin approved education. In 2014-15 there were around 83,000 recipients who received that payment and it was worth about $208 a year. When both of those payments were reduced, they obviously had the very worthy aim of trying to assist long-term income support recipients who had been out of the workforce for a considerable period of time. However, since the introduction of the payments, there have been several policies introduced which are designed to reduce the length of time that income support recipients, including single parents, who have the capacity to work can and should remain out of the workforce. Those policy changes, including varied eligibility and participation requirements for parenting payment, recognise that, as children age, their parents' capacity to work increases.
There have also been a number of changes to assessment and eligibility criteria for payments for people with reduced capacity to work that require that these people work or look for work in line with their capacity. The individuals are assisted into the workforce through services such as jobactive, which can help job seekers develop skills that they need to find and remain in work. The point is that, as policies have changed around the mutual obligation to search for work, the people who were subject to the mutual obligation were able to avail themselves of the assistance of workforce services, such as jobactive, which help job seekers develop the skills they need to find or remain in work. So it is the case that, whilst the supplements were meant to achieve a desirable end, there are now other ways that type of assistance into the workforce can be garnered and given to individuals who previously would have been the recipients of those payments.
Ceasing the two supplements will also have the benefit of, in part, simplifying the system of welfare that exists in Australia. All members present would be well aware of the recommendations of the McClure review which were to the effect that, when you maintain a system of over 20 basic payment types and 55 different subcategories, supplements and add-ons that have been layered by government after government onto the welfare system, it produces a complicated and unwieldy set of supplements and add-ons that any government rationally has to try to look at reducing.
Finally, the bill also reintroduces elements of the 2014 budget measure maintaining eligibility thresholds for Australian government payments for three years. One of those elements is to maintain at level for three years the income-free areas for all working age allowances other than student payments and parenting payment single from the new start date of 1 July 2016. A further element is to maintain at level for three years the income-free areas and other means test thresholds for student payments, including the student income bank limits. Those amounts were not to be indexed on 1 January 2016, 1 January 2017 and 1 January 2018. The start date for the implementation of pauses to these payments for the first year has indeed passed. These thresholds were indexed, according to normal arrangements, on 1 January 2016. This resulted in a loss of approximately $7.4 million in expected savings from the original total estimated savings of $93.8 million over the forward estimates. This brings into play an important point: the freezing of this type of indexation on income-free areas is a lever that has been used by successive governments. It was a lever that was used by the previous government with respect to a range of welfare payments. I note that it was not a matter that was the subject of pointed comment in many of the contributions from members opposite, and I would hazard a guess that that is because this is precisely a lever that members opposite used, in any reasonable observation in a fair way, to restrain savings and to restrain expenditure growth in the welfare budget when they were in office.
The changes help achieve the long-term sustainability of the payment system whilst ensuring that Australia has a targeted, means tested income support system that provides financial assistance to those most in need. Under the current rules, income-free areas and means test thresholds are indexed annually in line with movements in the consumer price index. Not indexing the value of these free areas and thresholds for three years will mean that increases to payments that would otherwise have occurred on the relevant indexation dates will not occur. It is estimated that, if this bill were to pass, the indexation of the thresholds would recommence in 2019.
Finally, it is important to consider these measures in the context of the broader financial situation, as I have mentioned, that the coalition government inherited. Unfortunately, the situation is one of debt and deficit. With it involving over a third of the Commonwealth budget—in fact, 35 per cent of the Commonwealth budget—welfare bills must be restrained. I thank members opposite for their contributions. I close the second reading debate with those brief comments.
It being just on 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.
I am very pleased rise to congratulate Elleanor Hoffman from Montmorency in my electorate of Jagajaga. Last year, as part of a grade 6 project at Watsonia Heights Primary School, Elleanor set about organising a petition calling for marriage equality. The petition reads:
Same sex marriage should be legalised since we the people of Australia believe that it is the right of every man and women, regardless of their sexual preference, to have the marital rights.
Today I am pleased to say that Elleanor's petition on marriage equality was tabled in the House of Representatives. The petition was signed by 254 local residents, all of whom are looking forward to the Australian parliament finally amending the Marriage Act to be inclusive of same-sex marriage. I remember seeing Elleanor on Burgundy Street in Heidelberg last September canvassing passers-by to sign her petition.
Marriage equality is a cause that I support. I voted for marriage equality when the matter came before the parliament in 2012. Elleanor hopes that if marriage equality is finally achieved we will be able to forge a society in which LGBTI Australians are included and not excluded. In this endeavour, Elleanor, you have my full support. Well done, Elleanor both for your activism and your commitment to marriage equality.
It was with deep sorrow I heard of the passing of Roderick West, one of Australia's finest headmasters, who served for a memorable 21 years at Trinity Grammar School. He was not only a teacher but a personal mentor to thousands of students and colleagues throughout Australia. With a Master of Arts degree from Sydney University, one of his significant teaching positions was at Timbertop Geelong Grammar School in 1966 where he taught Prince Charles during his Australian studies. Prince Charles specifically remembered his Latin teacher so well that they kept in touch right up until his passing. But this was not abnormal for Headmaster West. Mr West always had a personal connection with his students and seemed to strike a chord naturally and form an unbreakable bond outside of the classroom.
He was appointed headmaster of Trinity Grammar School in 1975. As a former student at Trinity Grammar School, I distinctly remember a headmaster who never gave up on anyone. He allowed each student to become their own individual, always encouraging them to try their best. His words of guidance helped me pave my way through high school and beyond, a moral compass that will remain with me for life.
As well as being hand-picked by the Howard government to review Australia's tertiary education system, Mr West has left a deep imprint on us all. His devotion to his career and pupils made him one of the country's most cherished headmasters, and he will be dearly missed. Our condolences go out to his family, and may he rest in peace.
This weekend rallies were held across the country calling for an end to greyhound racing. Fremantle's Kings Square alone saw more than 300 people come together. The rallies come ahead of the New South Wales special commission inquiry, expected to report in March.
A year after the ABC's Four Corners program, together with Animals Australia and Animal Liberation Queensland, revealed evidence of live baiting, which led to multiple arrests, suspensions and jail terms, serious concerns remain. Founder of the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds, Dr Eleonora Gullone, argues that:
Despite the spotlight being on them, they continue to engage in these cruel practices.
In addition to the use of live baiting, Dr Gullone estimates a horrifying 94 per cent of greyhounds bred each year are put down. If they do make it to the racetrack, their prospects are often not much better. Animals Australia reveals that five dogs are killed and 200 injured every week in official races. At retirement, only one in five will be used for breeding or rehomed. The rest, roughly 18,000 a year, will be killed. Thousands more are exported to Macau, Vietnam and other countries.
Greyhounds Australasia has developed a 'passport' system, requiring its members to meet animal welfare standards before greyhounds can be exported. However, nonmembers are free to do the wrong thing. The federal government should enact export laws to prohibit the export of greyhounds for racing. However, thus far, Minister Joyce has refused to do so.
It is evident that the welfare of greyhounds must become a greater priority for the federal and state governments. Greyhound exports should be prohibited and greyhound racing should be ended. Until this occurs, there must be independent regulation and greater oversight by federal and state governments, with an end to government funding.
Late last year the Australian Communications and Media Authority ruled free-to-air television stations be permitted to screen MA15+ programs half an hour earlier at 8:30 pm instead of 9 pm and M programs at 7:30 pm, a full hour earlier than had been the case. These changes came as a complete surprise to me and most other parliamentarians as well. A hasty meeting was organised between ACMA, the industry and concerned members of parliament where ACMA's independence was discussed. We were told that extensive survey work had been done and that no significant backlash was anticipated. That does not assure me in any way and, as I said at the time, it is not that hard to draw the lines between early and easier access to more violent and explicit television, the violence in our communities and the way many women are treated in relationships. The Australian Psychological Society has no doubt at all about the effects of violent and explicit material being viewed by children. Their website has copious amounts of advice on how parents can protect their children in this area.
The industry argues that children can access all kinds of material on myriad other platforms. While this is true, it does not make it right. By comparison, we will not make illegal drugs available at the convenience store just because we cannot control the trade. The industry maintains that the ability to play M and MA+ programs earlier does not mean they will. That begs the question though: why would you change the rules if they have no intention of changing the programming? Minister Fifield has asked ACMA to report back to him in 12 months. That is too long a time, in my opinion, but it is better than nothing.
It is Lunar New Year again and people all over the world and all through communities in Australia are celebrating this extraordinary event. Traditionally in the Northern Hemisphere Lunar New Year sees off winter and welcomes in the spring. That is not the case here, but we did see off the year of the goat and we welcome the year of the monkey. Monkeys, in the Chinese tradition, are paradoxically both foolish and wise. So it is going to be a very interesting year!
The events are fantastic. On Saturday I joined Master Ho and the local lion-dancing troupe for the traditional blessing of local businesses. For those of you who have not seen it before, local businesses hang lettuces—quite topical over the weekend!—and red envelopes outside their stores. The lion, with great courage, munches the lettuce and keeps the red envelope. It is a traditional offering to the lion. It was a great day down at Church Street Mall, with lots of kids following the lion around, slightly scared by its noise and its energy but quite fascinated by this traditional event which they can enjoy in this wonderful country of ours, Australia.
I also attended the Vietnamese new year Tet festival in Prairiewood. I would like to thank the work of the Vietnamese Community, particularly the New South Wales chapter and their president, Dr Thang Ha, and their secretary, Tu Le, who put on a fantastic event every year, with lots of firecrackers and lion dancing. They are great events. It is a great celebration, and it highlights the extraordinary East Asian communities in Australia. (Time expired)
I rise to inform the House that more jobs are starting to be created on the Central Coast as part of the Turnbull government's major commitment to deliver 600 new jobs into Gosford CBD. With a development application now lodged by the successful tenderer selected by the ATO to build this centre of excellence, the reinvigoration of Gosford is gathering momentum. Local subcontractors and businesses are already engaged in the design work.
More jobs are on their way, as there is set to be a peak workforce of more than 100 people working on site when construction begins around the middle of this year, right up to completion by the end of next year of a great new building, which will be leased by the government for 600 new federal jobs. When this centre of excellence opens its doors, we will start to see the benefits of what I call 'coffee shop economics' flowing through, as 600 new employees walk up Mann Street and support Gosford's cafes, its newsagents and its other small businesses on a regular basis.
But even as things start to happen in Gosford, including the Turnbull government's $10 million investment into a performing arts centre, it is sad to see Labor's misleading campaign continue. Labor's stunts have already shown they do not understand how tender processes work. Now Labor representatives on the Central Coast are trying to create a smokescreen by claiming that they want a performing arts centre on the site of old Gosford Public School, yet when Labor were in government, they only committed funding for this centre at a different location—on Gosford city park, commonly known as Poppy Park.
I rise today to speak about infrastructure. On Friday, I was pleased to attend the National Growth Areas Alliance Victorian launch of their Fund our Future campaign. I was proud to be there with Wyndham City Council mayor and councillors to advocate on behalf of the five million people in this country who live in growth corridors. Of course, Wyndham is one of those places as is Scullin, as the member for Scullin will rightly point out.
The launch has three priorities—roads, public transport and health in these growth corridors—and one solution: a dedicated national infrastructure fund. They are calling for that funding. I note today, with disappointment, an AFR report that says there is an expected unexplained $16 billion cut in spending in infrastructure across our cities since the 2014 budget—just another example of this government saying one thing and yet doing another.
But, with Labor, you can rely on us coming out to listen. In Lalor next week, you will be able to attend a cities task force led by the member for Scullin on the 18 February at the Encore Events Centre between 5 and 7 pm. I encourage locals who live the experience of a growth corridor to come and inform me and my Labor colleagues of their personal experience and the impact on work-life balance and family experience. Thank you.
Gong xi fa cai! Welcome to the year of the monkey. Today, we celebrate the longest and most important celebration in the Chinese calendar, Chinese or Lunar New Year.
The celebration farewells winter and the year gone by and rings in spring and the fresh year with family and friends. Making wishes for luck, prosperity and good fortune, and warding off evil spirits are all central to many celebrations, which vary across China and Lunar New Year cultures.
It gave me great pleasure to visit a number of local Chinese businesses and migrants over the weekend and wish them a happy Chinese New Year. To the owners and staff at Golden Lakes and Golden West Lakes Chinese restaurants, House of Tien at Morphettville and August Moon at Glenelg East: it was nice to visit your restaurants, and thank you for your kind hospitality over the weekend. Chinese people first came to Australia in large numbers during the Gold Rush in the 1850s and 1860s. Since then, there has been a long history of Chinese immigration to Australia.
Examples of Chinese migration remain in our cities, such as Chinatown in Adelaide, where the pagoda style roofs, red lanterns, restaurants and grocery stores are all found and serve as a constant reminder of the significant contribution the Chinese have made to Australia culturally and economically. You have to look no further than the impact on our food! Everyone in this place no doubt has their favourite restaurant for yum cha, dim sum, dumplings or Peking duck.
From tourism to trade, education and other services, the relationship with China is of great importance to Australia and, with the trade agreements, will be even better. We look for it to continue and grow. I wish the Chinese-Australian community a happy, healthy, lucky and prosperous new year.
Last week's decision by the High Court about offshore detention of refugees, in a clear 6-1 decision, highlights that the role of courts is to interpret law and that it is up to governments and the parliament to ensure that laws are fair and just. Detention conditions on Nauru and Manus Island have now been widely criticised by independent investigations, medical staff and other contracted services providers who are familiar with the centres. The government cannot ignore the criticisms.
The children being detained are innocent victims in the matter. They had no say in fleeing their homeland, in coming into this world or in paying people smugglers. They are in a situation not of their making or their choosing. They are, however, being kept in conditions that no member of this place would want for their own children. Stopping the boats is one matter. The detention of refugees and children for long periods is another. Detention times have now blown out to 445 days. The High Court judgement has brought a focus to this very important issue. The fate of those children and their families now rests with the federal government. They have spent too long in detention, and their refugee applications should be immediately assessed.
I rise today to commend all the citizens of my electorate who received Australia Day awards this year. While many people across the electorate were honoured, I am going to concentrate on one extraordinary woman who was awarded a member of the Order of Australia. Geraldine Hogarth from Leonora is a Kuwarra Pini Tjalkatarra woman who received the OAM in recognition of her work in child ear health and language preservation.
Geraldine has worked and lived around Leonora her whole life and, when she started her career working in community health, immediately saw the connection between hearing, learning and culture. She felt that more than ever all people should be able to listen to and learn from one another so that they can live in a new, multicultural Australia. Along with her mother, Luxie Hogarth, she is very involved with teaching Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children the language of Kuwarra and, as such, are preserving their language.
I was taken by something Geraldine said in a recent interview. She said that people simply need support and encouragement to allow their own strengths and skills to shine. Congratulations, Geraldine, on being recognised with an Order of Australia. Your attitude, dedication to your community and hard work are an inspiration to everyone, and you should feel very proud of receiving such a prestigious award.
Yesterday marked the 7th anniversary of the February 2009 bushfires. These fires claimed 170 lives and across the state 450,000 hectares were burned. More than 7½ thousand people were displaced and more than 3½ thousand homes, buildings and structures were destroyed—many in my electorate of Indi. A royal commission followed and recommendations led to improvement in warning systems, new guidelines for bushfire planning and building and a greater emphasis on community education and development of fire plans.
At the community level, people have shown their resilience. In King Lake, a group of women came together to provide 300 meals a day and support for those fighting the fires in the Murrindindi shire. After the fires, the King Lake FireFoxes formed: women rising together from Black Saturday. They have played a significant role in rebuilding the community, conducting women's leadership retreats, providing emotional support, working with the CFA and sharing their skills right around the nation.
The Rivers and Rangers Community Leadership Program was established to support regional leadership development in the Murrindindi and related shires. The result is stronger communities, better placed to face adversity. The 2009 fires were absolutely disastrous. Today I would like to place on the record my support and feelings for the families who were devastated and who lost loved ones during those fires. May they rest in peace and may they know that we have not forgotten them.
It was a great pleasure that I had the opportunity to attend the launch of the South East Campus at the Crossway Baptist Church. I congratulate Senior Pastor Dale Stephenson and Campus Pastor Bill Malcolm. Also, on the day, we had Councillor Morland there, who had just received an OAM. Congratulations, Mick. The congregation was very excited. This was a fantastic occasion, with over 300 people there. They have moved across from the 9,000 active members, including 3,000 members online, at Burwood.
All the churches in La Trobe do a fantastic job, but I congratulate Crossway for bringing their unique COACH program to La Trobe. This is a buddy like system which aims to help families and youth through financial and emotional times of stress; it is much needed assistance. As members of parliament in government, we cannot provide a 10-week mentoring program but that is precisely what Crossways are planning to do. They are planning to help families right across La Trobe deal with financial burdens, emotional stress and, sadly, drug use, domestic violence and relationship breakdowns. It is compassionate and kind people like those at Crossway who make our world a better place for our generation and future generations to come. Congratulations and well done.
Today I would like to speak about an issue which, for many, will in the first instance appear like an 11th order issue; but for many residents in rural and regional communities it is a very, very serious issue. I am talking about flying fox infestation. It has now gone beyond a private amenity issue. It has become in my electorate a very serious health issue, where elderly people with respiratory problems are now being affected or threatened at least to be affected by the presence of these animals in flight.
Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, we have been talking about this thing for 14 years. In the 43rd Parliament, the hung parliament, I think someone might have successfully moved a motion calling for some action on flying fox infestation. In Singleton in my electorate, we can no longer have Anzac Day in Burdekin Park because of the flying foxes. We are now stuck in the local civic centre—a nice venue but nothing like the beautiful Burdekin Park, where Anzac Day and other services have been historically held.
The problem is in Maitland, Cessnock, Singleton and many other communities in my electorate. I know there are environmental issues. I do not plead to be completely ignorant of them, but let us get out there and explain to the community how and why we are going to do more about this very serious problem in rural and regional Australia.
It is a rare thrill to have my three favourite Dunkley residents with me here today: my bodacious wife, Mrs Billson, Bella and Maddie. It is great that they give me the love and encouragement to do what I can for our community. It was late last year when I spoke about a delicious opportunity in the 'Riviera' of Melbourne, down in Frankston on the Mornington Peninsula, to turn a multimillion dollar investment into a refresh and relocation of the Frankston Railway Station—a real transformation in our city. It was great that the Napthine coalition government had allocated funding for a project of this kind. In fairness to the current state Labor government, they have supplemented those funds. But what we cannot do is just do a tart-up of the railway station. What we need to do is examine the strategic significance of that functioning piece of infrastructure and the land uses that surround it to catalyse the resources that are available, to encourage private sector investment and to realise that there are many moving parts in our great city.
We have challenges around further investment at the Frankston campus of Chisholm. We could integrate that into the transport hub. We have got a relocation task from the Mount Eliza Centre, part of the peninsula health network—their IT, their communication stuff. They could be in our city. We could have the vision that I have for the Caroline Chisholm university college—an open campus where any provider can provide the education. I urge the state government to treat this as a strategic planning exercise. They have refused to do so. They need to reconsider this opportunity.
It is a sad fact that 41 per cent of contested family law matters involve domestic violence. Over 80 per cent of Federal Circuit Court matters involve family law matters. Against this background, I am asking for the support of every parliamentarian to resolve the stand-off, the crisis, in the appointment of new family Federal Circuit Court judges at the Wollongong registry. Right now, the Wollongong family law docket, excluding divorce matters, has in excess of 590 matters. This is an increase of 20 per cent in the last 12 months alone with no changes in the resources allocated to the registry. If somebody makes an application today, they may get a mention for that matter in May, but there are no slots for a final hearing of the matter in this year alone. It is not unusual for a matter to lie two or three years before it gets a final hearing.
As anybody knows, when you are dealing with Family Court matters, you are often dealing with families who are under some of the greatest financial and psychological stresses. Against this background, you can understand that all Illawarra based members—including myself, the member for Cunningham and even the Liberal member for Gilmore—were surprised to learn that a new Federal Circuit Court judge was appointed to the Rockhampton-Mackay registry, where they have a fraction of the excess matters in place. I am asking the Attorney-General to listen to the voices of local members and resolve—(Time expired)
Today I want to talk about a very special addition to the Bayside community in my electorate of Bonner. Just recently Yulu-Burri-Ba Aboriginal Corporation for Community Health opened a new clinic in Wynnum. I had the pleasure of touring the facility with the Minister for Rural Health, Senator the Hon. Fiona Nash. We got to see their wonderful works firsthand, and I thank them for their hospitality.
They have been one of the great success stories in the field of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. For over 25 years they have provided primary health care and other health services on North Stradbroke Island. In that time they have continued to grow, and I am thrilled to see them expand their services to Wynnum. They offer GP services, after-hours care, home visits when needed, a transport service and much more that will benefit so many lives. Yulu-Burri-Ba has achieved so many positive outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
I congratulate the team for all of their hard work and dedication. They should be incredibly proud of everything that they have accomplished. It is easy to see the enormous benefit of their new clinic that will be to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community on Brisbane's beautiful Bayside. I look forward to paying them another visit in the future and wish them every success going forward.
Last Thursday, a draft document prepared for the Turnbull government's National Security Committee was leaked to ABC's Lateline program. This latest leaked document verges on bigotry and racism, extraordinarily singling out a specific ethnic group, namely the Lebanese Muslim community, as a migration concern. It is no surprise then that the Australian Lebanese community expressed their dismay at this document, with the Sydney Morning Herald reporting
Lebanese Australians have expressed fury over a leaked federal government document that singles them out as prone to extremism, calling it 'dangerous and divisive'.
As someone whose husband is Australian Lebanese and someone who is proud to have a daughter of mixed Lebanese ancestry, I find this document personally offensive.
The language used in this document has the potential to damage community harmony and threatens to undo the good work done by community organisations, law enforcement and, may I also include, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Perhaps the most concerning, though, is the proposal to close the door to permanent resettlement for refugees. This proposal smashes the contract between Australia and those to whom we are seeking to give a new life. Critically, these proposals will make the settlement journey of recently arrived refugees impossibly difficult.
Making refugees feel excluded from the moment they arrive in Australia is not the way to fight extremism. People in the Humanitarian Program should be permanent residents. Refugees seeking to come here cannot be left in limbo, and these proposals should be completely rejected.
One hundred and 73 people killed, 410 people injured on one day—all on Black Saturday. Hundreds and hundreds of lives were saved by the work of our CFA that day. It was a shocking, horrific day, when even this parliament was brought to its knees in grief. I stand today to speak of that grief, although the blood of the victims, the ash in the forests and the sweat of those facing the foe, when they were joined together, did bring forth new life.
But there are those who still grieve on this day for the loved ones they lost, for the children they lost, but especially for the future that those children were never given by the devastation of that fire. It was a proud moment when this parliament stopped still in its desire to be identified with those who died and those who stood against the foe with such bravery.
We are eternally indebted to you. and we remember your grief this day. We know there are mums today who are still grieving for their lost children.
I would just like to associate everyone on this side of the parliament with the previous member's remarks. I know, Mr Speaker, that your electorate, like mine, was threatened on that day, and I could not agree more with the words of the member for McMillan. Thank you very much for your contribution today.
The unemployed in Australia are distinctly unexcited by the PM's suggestion that the states should be raising payroll tax—a tax on jobs. More than $22 billion is collected across Australia in payroll taxes each year. It disadvantages those companies that employ people and privileges the investment and capital over labour. For the record, the Prime Minister is sighing; indeed, he may well sigh because we do not need a further tax on jobs.
The PM says it is an efficient tax, but it is only efficient because it is hard to avoid. In WA we have seen the payroll tax threshold creep smash small businesses. In 2014-15, a company with a $4 million payroll was paying almost $200,000 in payroll tax. A Curtin Economics Centre report, released last year, said that WA ranked equal first in the payroll tax costs for small businesses.
Payroll tax already makes up 40.5 per cent of WA's state tax revenue, and yet our unemployment rate has doubled over the last four years. We need to encourage labour-intensive businesses to hire, not to cut back on wages and staff in a bid to lower their payroll tax. No-one is falling for this trick, PM. The problem is not what the states are or are not—(Time expired)
Last week our nation lost one of our brightest stars. History will list Paul Pholeros as an adjunct professor of architecture at the University of Sydney, recognised with an order of Australia in 2007, but Paul was much more than that. The approach he took to his work inspired thousands of Australians to think creatively of how to better use the built environment to deliver the greatest social benefit at the lowest cost. In the process Paul Pholeros helped tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of disadvantaged people, mostly Indigenous Australians in remote communities, to achieve better health outcomes through improved living conditions.
The member for Bennelong will resume his seat. It being 2pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. We all agree that Australia cannot let people languish on Nauru and Manus indefinitely. Can the Prime Minister update the House on efforts to secure a credible resettlement arrangement in other countries for asylum seekers and refugees on Nauru and Manus Island?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, and I can assure him and all honourable members that the government is determined to deal with those people on Manus and Nauru that arrived during the period of the Labor government's abandoning the very effective border protection policies of the Howard era.
The Labor government, of which he was part, consciously abandoned policies that had worked—that had ensured that, at the time John Howard ceased to be Prime Minister, there was not one child in detention; that had ensured that the people smugglers' business model had been broken. In this chamber in 2009, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd argued that the Howard government's policies should be abandoned, and he said that the Howard government's policies—our domestic border protection arrangements—were irrelevant. He said the only thing that drove the rate of people smugglers—the only thing that drove the rate of unauthorised arrivals—was the push factors; the external factors in the Middle East, in Central Asia, in Africa and so forth. And we argued back in our turn that the push factors were doubtless very significant but they were always enormous, and that the real issue, the real factor, the critical element, was whether we had a secure policy to protect our borders. And, well, we lost that argument. Labor had the numbers. And then we saw what happened—50,000 arrivals, over 1,200 people drowned at sea who we know about; doubtless there were more whose tragedies are unknown, at least to us. And so we came back into office—
The member for Moreton is now warned.
and we restored the policies of the Howard government, and once again they worked. But we inherited a number of people on Manus Island and Nauru from the period when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, in his brief return to office before the 2013 election, overturned his own government's policies. We are working to ensure they return to their countries of origin or are settled in other countries, in third countries, as quickly as we can. It is not easy, but we are endeavouring to do that. We are working hard to do that. But I can say one thing: we will not abandon our commitment to keeping the high seas safe, to keeping our borders secure, and to ensuring that our policies have integrity and security.
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the member for Brisbane, I refer members interjecting to my statement on Thursday at about 2.15 about continuous interjecting. The member for Griffith, the member for Sydney, and the member for Moreton I mentioned last week. I again give fair warning. I will not tolerate continual interjections. The member for Moreton has been warned; it is his final warning. If he interjects again today, he will be out under 94(a). I call the member for Brisbane.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the implementation of the historic Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement? Why is this trade agreement vital to opening up new market opportunities for Australian businesses to support jobs and growth?
I thank the honourable member for her question, and I note the very keen endorsement she has made and the great support she gives to exporters in her own electorate in Brisbane. Mr Speaker, what we have seen is the return of the trade minister from Auckland after another significant trade agreement has been negotiated. The Tran-Pacific Partnership Agreement is the most significant trade agreement negotiated anywhere in the world in more than 20 years. It includes 12 nations representing 40 per cent of global GDP—the US, Japan and Canada among them, and including of course Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and so many other nations. This is a phenomenal agreement. The trade minister has signed that agreement in Auckland alongside 11 of our key trading partners.
Our exports to the markets in the TPP were worth $109 billion last year—a third of all of our exports—and the TPP will deliver substantial new trade and investment opportunities for business, including the removal of tariffs on $4.3 billion worth of agriculture exports including beef, dairy, sugar, rice and wine. It will include greater access to the world's most dynamic economies for our services industries—these are the real growth opportunities of the future—and freer flow of data across borders, which helps drive innovation and the 21st century digital economy. This is building the jobs of the 21st century. This is an important element in the building block of the foundation of our future prosperity. Just as the innovation minister and I were in a school here in Harrison in the ACT today, and seeing kids learning how to count, preschoolers, and how to get them interested in science. Early counting, young scientists—that is all part of the same package.
The member for Fraser is warned!
Every element of our policy is designed to ensure we get strong economic growth. Now the Labor Party at this stage appears to be reluctant to approve the TPP. I notice they are referring it to a separate Senate inquiry, over and above the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. So it may be that we will see their opposition to the TPP, as we did to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Of course, right across the board, Labor seek to oppose important economic measures, opposing our childcare policy, which will increase female participation in the labour force. They are opposing the reintroduction of a strong watchdog on the construction industry. The return of the ABCC will create jobs, it will create enterprise and it will create investment. Labor stands in the way of all of those things.
Just before I call the member for McMahon, in case the member for Fraser did not hear me, he was warned during that answer. The member for McMahon has the call.
My question is to the Treasurer. The government has previously said that everything was on the table in relation to changing the tax system. Treasurer, is that still the case?
The government continue to consider all the matters that are before us on tax, as I think the Australian people would expect us to do. The member who asked the question would know about keeping things on the table, because scenario 3, as we recall, when he was Treasurer, was an increase in the GST rate to 12½ per cent and broadening its base. That was the matter that was being kept on the table by the member for McMahon. So the government will continue to consider all these matters very soberly and carefully to ensure that we make the right decision, the right economic decision, for jobs and growth—because that is our focus.
Wherever the government are able to properly and ably deliver support for those Australians who are working and saving and investing, for those Australians who are earning every day—not just receiving every day but earning every day—we will always seek to ensure that we leave no stone unturned to ensure that we can provide them with support. But these proposals always have to stack up and they always have to work, and this is a government that is not only good on policy but good on the implementation of policy—something the Prime Minister was referring to earlier when he was referring to a very different matter, when it came to border protection. And the member for McMahon will know all about failures when it comes to implementation on border protection.
My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister advise the House of the importance of the newly signed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement to the Australian economy, and how will this trade agreement support jobs and growth in this critical post mining boom period?
I thank the member. He is a great advocate for a wonderful part of Tasmania known for its premium quality produce. Business and industry have strongly recognised TPP's transformational potential. Business Council of Australia Chief Executive, Jennifer Westacott, perhaps best captured it:
The TPP levels the playing field for business, workers and farmers, which means more jobs, higher wages, stronger growth, a higher standard of living and new economic opportunities for Australia.
… … …
Seen in the context of the cumulative impact of three ambitious bilateral free trade agreements these deals open the door for Australia to the geographical epicentre of global growth.
To this end, the TPP will see 98 per cent of tariffs eliminated between 800 million people in the TPP region. Enormous benefits will flow from a more seamless trading environment involving paperless trading, one set of trading rules and streamlined customs rules, including common rules of origin. The TPP is a 21st-century agreement, addressing not only traditional areas of trade but also areas such as e-commerce and reopening the doors for SMEs to global and regional value chains. Furthermore, it sets in place common rules for labour and the environment and new rules to combat bribery and corruption, also ensuring that our private companies are able to effectively compete against state owned enterprises.
Significantly, this agreement will promote the expansion of our world-class services, which is so critically important to the Australian economy—services like our $90 billion mining equipment, technologies and services, or METS sector; and professional services such as legal, architectural, engineering, surveying, financial, education, telecommunications, IT, transport, health, hospitality and tourism. The TPP is also open for other countries to join, which will magnify the benefits.
Along with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which is currently under negotiation and includes the likes of China and India, the TPP provides a prospective pathway to the creation of a free trade area across the entire Asia-Pacific region. When combined with our historic deals with Korea, Japan and China, it forms a grand slam for Australia, providing a strong platform to drive future growth and job creation in this challenging post-mining-boom period.
My question is to the Treasurer. Last week, when talking up an increase in the GST, the Treasurer said, 'We've got to do what's right.' Does the Treasurer still think that increasing the GST is the right thing to do?
The government will always do what is right, and what I was saying in that interview is that the government would determine what was right and that we would get about it. I can tell you what is not right, and that is the tax-and-spend approach of those opposite. That is what is not right for jobs and growth in this country. What I know of those opposite is they seem to confuse spending and taxes. They seem to confuse savings measures and tax measures. The member for Fraser said very recently, 'We've put on the table around $70 billion of savings over the course of the next decade.' But they are not savings; they are actually tax increases.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
I remind the member for Fraser he has been warned.
Those opposite do not understand the difference between a savings measure, where you actually reduce expenditure, and a tax measure, where you are pushing up taxes. This government is not about tax and spend; those opposite are.
No answer!
The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting.
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The member for Barker will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Treasurer. The government claims the recent change to the income test for defined pension recipients will principally affect superannuants on big incomes, but the truth is that most of those affected are on modest incomes and nowhere near wealthy. Take one Tasmanian couple, for example, whose only assets are a caravan and a car but have lost $164 a fortnight from their age pension. Treasurer, will you immediately reconsider this policy?
I thank the member for his question and recognise his genuine concern with the issue. By way of explanation, obviously the member for Denison is well aware that defined benefit schemes at their heart provide a source of income. It is an income payment that comes from the rules of the scheme—the rules of the scheme vary but overwhelmingly defined benefit schemes paid income which reflected years of service and final salary. Most often they were under public sector auspices, and it is obviously important to note for present purposes that if it was one of those very rare schemes that was contributory then there are bases on which the rules that we are about to introduce can be excluded.
The fact is that we are very willing to justify this on the grounds of fairness, because there are two fundamental principles that underpin the social security system and the pension system particularly—they are, firstly, that it is means tested and that an individual's income has to be looked at before it can be determined whether or not they are a recipient appropriately of the pension or any other social security payment, and the second basic principle is that in assessing someone's income what should matter is not the source of income but the amount of the income. The member for Denison has given an example of someone who is losing an amount per fortnight. We are talking here about 140,000 in defined benefit schemes. The change in the rules we are proposing would only affect 47,938 of those, and 1,572 people would lose payments, would lose access to the part pension—but they are individuals who receive very large amounts of money from defined benefit schemes as income.
As an example, under the previous policy—and this applies to that group of roughly 1,500—there were individuals receiving in excess of $100,000 a year on defined benefit schemes who were still able to access the part pension. On any measure that is inequitable and therefore unfair. With respect to those other 46,366 individuals who will find their part pension decreased as they enter the taper rate, because their income is being assessed, perhaps I can give the member for Denison an example showing why this is equitable. If you were a couple who had an investment property and were receiving $30,000 a year in rent, then your rental income plus your part pension would allow for $51,500 a year in total. If perchance you happened to be earning $30,000 a year in income from a defined benefit scheme, given the rules we are now about to change, you would have been eligible for $59,000 per year. The only salient difference was the source of the income. The change we are making, which is applicable to the type of person the member for Denison has described, would be that if you had $30,000 per year coming in from a defined benefit scheme you would still be able to access the part pension, but, yes, the amount overall would reduce to $54,000. It is still more than the couple who receive their $30,000 income on rent, so really this is a matter of equity. (Time expired)
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the former member for New England, Mr Tony Windsor. On behalf of the House I extend a warm welcome to him.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer advise the House of the importance of sound fiscal policy to our transitioning economy. How important is it that any new spending be accompanied by offsetting savings to ensure a balanced budget and to create jobs and growth?
I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. He knows that the global economic times at present are very uncertain—there is a lot of volatility. Those opposite seem to scoff at that, but that is a reality and I know that that is a matter of some concern to Australians, whether it is in the electorate of the member for La Trobe or elsewhere. In these types of times it is very important that, as a government, we continue to do everything we possibly can to strengthen, not weaken, our financial position. We must strengthen our financial position. We need to do everything we can in this transitioning economy, which is successfully transitioning, to back Australians who are out there every day making that transition successful. The ANZ job ads figures show that we have had an 11.2 per cent increase over the past year. That is good news. December quarter retail sales figures were up, and that is also good news.
The Reserve Bank governor has constantly made the point that we are seeing this economy successfully transition, but our role in all of that is to back Australians in by ensuring that we have the strongest financial position that we can possibly have. The way you do that is that if you are going to pursue new measures, if you need to spend more on very important things, you fund them from savings—not through higher taxes, which is the approach of those on the other side. We are seeking to put through some very important new expenditures to support families being able to afford child care in this country. That is not an inexpensive proposition. But we on this side of the House have identified more than $3 billion in savings to pay for that important new expenditure.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga is now warned!
Those opposite want to take the spending but they do not want to support the saving. That is a recipe for fiscal disaster. We on this side of the House understand the need to keep things in balance. Those opposite have a big problem. They have said they want to reverse $30 billion in savings that we have already been able to move through this parliament, they do not support some $13 billion more in savings which is part of government policy, most of which is being blocked by those opposite, and they have committed to an extra $14 billion just since the last budget—they are racking up some $57 billion in commitments. What do they have to pay for them? They have identified $1.2 billion in savings over the next four years—just $1.2 billion—to pay for $57 billion worth of expenditure commitments. And they have $7.6 billion in higher taxes. The contrast is clear—the plan of those opposite is to tax and spend and borrow. Our plan is to ensure that we back Australians in who are working, saving and investing.
My question is to the Treasurer. What is the impact of the rate of GST on economic growth? What would be the impact on economic growth of increasing the GST?
I thank the member for the question. He should actually know the answer, given he modelled an increase in the GST and a broadening of its base. On numerous occasions, I have said in this place that I would be very happy to see the results of the member's modelling that he did when he was Treasurer for a brief period—because he will not release that information. He actually will not release the assumptions or give the government permission to look at the modelling the Labor Party did, when they were in government, on increasing the GST and broadening its base.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Member for Sydney!
Now, what this government is focused on is policies that support jobs and growth, and this government has not considered any measures seriously that have not involved an improvement and certainly not any that go back in terms of growth. This government is focused on measures that support growth. This government has been focusing on seeking to find ways where we can relieve the growing income tax burden on income earners, on wage earners, on small businesses—
Mr Champion interjecting—
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is now warned! The member for Hotham is also warned!
We have deep empathy for people in this country who are working every day to pay for our expanding welfare system, and we think we need to be thinking about their interests and trying to relieve their burden—and we will leave no stone unturned to try and relieve that burden for them. Those opposite have no empathy for those who are working every day to pay for our burgeoning welfare system which they ramped up.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for McMahon will cease interjecting! Again, I warn the member for Sydney: I will not allow members to continually interject. The member for Griffith has been warned. I warned the member for Moreton in very clear terms; he has continued to interject beyond that on at least four occasions. He will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber .
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the government's response to yesterday's missile test by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? What is the government doing in response to this test?
I thank the member for Reid for his question. I know how concerned he is and how concerned he is for the interests of the Korean community in his electorate. The Australian government unreservedly condemns the launch yesterday by North Korea of a long-range ballistic missile. This is in gross violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions that have been formulated over decades. This is a threat to not only our region but also global peace and security. It is destabilising, it is provocative and it is dangerous behaviour. The UN Security Council has condemned this latest act of provocation by the North Korean regime. Indeed, the UN Security Council has stated it is a clear threat to international peace and security and has begun considering additional significant measures against the North Korean regime. Disturbingly, the North Korean regime continues to act in defiance of the international community and is focusing its very scarce resources on militarisation and the development of nuclear and ballistic missiles and weapons.
Now, this is grossly provocative behaviour. It is aggravating tensions on the Korean peninsula. And they are doing this at a time when the people of North Korea are suffering. It is estimated that about a third of the population is without enough food. That is leading to widespread malnutrition amongst the children, and it is estimated that a significant number of the children are suffering not only from malnutrition but from stunted growth as a result.
The Australian government have implemented all of the sanctions that the UN Security Council have imposed against the North Korean regime, and we will continue to urge the Security Council to take tougher measures against the North Korean regime until it ceases its development and use of ballistic missile technology and testing of nuclear weapons—because, of course, only recently, North Korea tested another nuclear weapon.
I am considering additional designations against North Korean individuals and organisations who have been supporting this destabilising and provocative behaviour, and the Australian government will continue to urge greater action against North Korea while ever it persists in this conduct that threatens not only regional peace and security but global peace and security. This regime must be stopped from this behaviour.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Reports suggest that government ministers are backing away from plans to increase the price of everything with a 15 per cent GST. Prime Minister, today is the day to stop the waffle and come clean with the Australian people. Will the Prime Minister introduce a 15 per cent GST, yes or no?
The Leader of the Opposition invites me to rule out any changes to the GST—and, to be fair, there is something to be said for doing so, because it would mean the green-groceries aisles of Australia would be safe from the Leader of the Opposition! Thousands of lettuces would no longer have the Leader of the Opposition flinging himself in front of any would-be charges on them! But I say to the Leader of the Opposition: it is very important that we have a fully informed—
Mr Speaker—
Government members interjecting—
Before I call the Manager for Opposition Business, members on my right will cease interjecting.
Mr Speaker—
Can he bear in mind, just as he starts his point of order, that we are just over 30 seconds into the answer to what was a very long question.
Yes, I know! The point of order is on direct relevance. The Prime Minister does not have to maintain relevance to the word 'waffle'.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is in order.
The government is carefully considering a whole range of proposals for changes to the tax system.
Let me say something about the GST. A rise to the GST obviously increases the price of the 47 per cent or so of all of the goods and services in the consumer basket that it covers, so an increase in the GST reduces the purchasing power of an Australian consumer. Were you to increase the GST, as many people argue, and apply that money to reduce personal income tax, then of course to a greater or lesser extent that reduction in purchasing power would be counteracted—in other words, the taxpayer would have more money in their pocket after tax, and that would ideally be greater than or at least equal to the amount of extra money they would have to pay at the store. The argument in favour of this, in terms of the economic efficiency, is that taxes on income apply to income that is both consumed, spent and saved. That is why there is an argument that a tax-mix switch provides a net economic benefit.
Opposition members interjecting—
As I have said, the government is not yet persuaded that in the context of Australia today such a tax-mix switch would give an adequate improvement in economic activity—but those are the trade-offs. Honourable members opposite can scoff as much as they like, but those are the trade-offs. It is a question of balancing the increase in GST on the one hand and an offsetting reduction in income tax on the other and the extent to which that is fair and gives additional impetus to economic growth depends on the design. There is a considerable amount of complexity there. I believe that all Australians expect this government to approach this issue not with slogans or with scare campaigns but with careful analysis.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. Will the minister update the House on some of the science, technology, engineering and maths initiatives being delivered by the government as a result of the National Innovation and Science Agenda?
I would like to thank the member for Deakin for his question, because I know he is very interested in the policies of the government around encouraging young people into science, technology, engineering and maths subjects. As we all know, an estimated 75 per cent of jobs in the fastest growing industries require STEM skilled workers, so we have to ensure that the students of the future, the workers of the future, have the skills necessary to be able to compete not only in Australia but around the world. So as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda, which the Prime Minister and I announced last December, we are putting tremendous effort and resources into growing science, technology, engineering and maths in schools. In fact, we are putting about $100 million into it.
Today, ACT Senator Zed Seselja, the Prime Minister and I went out to the Mother Teresa Early Learning Centre at Harrison and announced $8 million as part of that amount of money for support for Little Scientists and for Let's Count. Let's Count is run by the Smith family. It is designed to support disadvantaged families who want their children to have the chance to learn mathematics and to count from the earliest age, just as many people in much better-off households expect.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
It is a real measure of our equity and about supporting capacity in households for children to learn how to count, which I would have thought the member for Perth would have thought was a good idea, but apparently the member for Perth does not think it is a good idea.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth will cease interjecting.
The other part of the announcement was the Little Scientists program—$4 million—run by the Froebel association from Germany. It is a program that is designed to support teachers around digital literacy so that teachers have the necessary skills, the necessary capacity, to impart the importance of science, technology, engineering and maths to their charges in classes around Australia. We have an element that is supporting families and students and an element that is supporting teachers and students, all with the objective of growing science, technology, engineering and maths in our schools and in our society. The National Innovation and Science Agenda will support the economy of the future, which is not just to be able to rely on mining, agriculture, tourism, resources or international education but to recognise that we are a modern economy that requires a combination of factors that will make us have jobs and growth, and innovation and science are a big part of that.
Today we put another down payment on the National Innovation and Science Agenda. We will continue to do so right through to the future, because we know how important it is for our students.
My question is to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister rolled the member for Warringah, he said that it was because the former Prime Minister had failed—
The member for Sydney will resume her seat. I am going to give the member for Sydney an opportunity to rephrase the start of that question.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The member for Lingiari will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister deposed the member for Warringah he said it was because the former Prime Minister had failed to provide economic leadership. Jennifer Hewett writes in today's Australian Financial Review:
Turnbull himself now risks looking like a political leader without the courage of his convictions. Or worse, no convictions at all.
Is this the kind of leadership the Prime Minister was speaking about— (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That question was all preamble and no question. I am not sure how the Prime Minister could answer it.
There was no question asked.
Government members interjecting—
The members on my right will cease interjecting.
Mr Chester interjecting—
The member for Gippsland is warned.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it is my understanding that the clock had not been reset at the beginning of the question.
My understanding is that it was paused. There was no question, unfortunately. I am going to move to the next question.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on how the coalition government's support for agriculture is boosting growth and jobs in my electorate of Hume and around the country?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member has come off a sheep and cattle place and comes from a family of four boys—we beat you; I came from a family of five. Apart from that, our paths differ. The honourable member is a Rhodes scholar, a university medallist and a first-class honours graduate from the university. He, more than most, understands exactly what has happened under this government as opposed to the previous Independent-Labor-Greens government in agriculture.
It was great to be able to pick up The Land on 24 January and see that agriculture exports have now overtaken coal as our second largest export commodity. I quote:
Australia's agricultural exports achieved a notable milestone last year, overtaking total coal to become the country's second most valuable commodity export after iron ore.
This does not happen by accident. This happens by hard work and it happens by good global conditions, but we have done our part to facilitate it.
We have always talked about what we have done in the beef industry and in the sheep industry, but I think it is good to start looking at a few of the other industries. The wine industry, for instance. Clonakilla, one of Australia's most prestigious vineyards, is in the honourable member's electorate. Under this government, we have seen wine exports in the last year go from 700 million litres in 2014 to 744 million litres in 2015, with its value going up from $1.82 billion in 2014 to $2.1 billion in 2015.
We have seen the rural goods exports under this government grow by 9.7 per cent in the year 2013-14 and by a further seven per cent in 2014-15. It continued its strong growth in the first half of the year 2015-16, going up by 12.7 per cent. Under this government, we have seen that over 50 commodities can now access international markets through improving demand for our produce, driving those jobs into regional areas. Over 30 key commodities can now access international markets more easily. This means more money in the producers' pockets and more money into regional towns. We have opened up seven new live animal destinations. We have also seen the price of wool increase.
But what did we see under the previous Labor-Greens-Independent government? We saw the aid budget go from $3.8 billion down to $1.7 billion; it was more than halved. We saw a government that closed down the live cattle trade, and none of them so much as raised a finger about it. The Australian people understand quite clearly the benefits of having a coalition government and it is great to be part of a government that is delivering those benefits.
My question is again to the Prime Minister. On the weekend, Peter Hartcher asked in The Sydney Morning Herald: is the Turnbull government 'shaping up as the Abbott government with a more personable salesman'? Just what is the Prime Minister's tax plan and, in the words of Peter Hartcher:
What is the point of Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister?
I am glad that the honourable member for Sydney is at least able to find a question on her second attempt to quote a distinguished Fairfax columnist! Let me simply say this: our policy and our focus is on driving jobs and growth, it is on driving innovation and it is on driving technology. We have put in place measures already to do that. The National Innovation and Science Agenda, of which the minister spoke just a while ago, was a significant step on the road to Australia being able to compete effectively in the 21st century.
Right across the board, it is promoting science and STEM subjects generally in schools. The minister and I were at a preschool in Harrison in the ACT today. The agenda has provided additional funding to the CSIRO for its own innovation fund. It is providing new tax incentives to ensure that the early stage companies and start-up companies are more likely to get the seed funding they need to get started. Right across the board, those are the measures that we are putting in place.
What that is doing is changing attitudes in business in Australia to innovation. We now have a massive multitrillion dollar superannuation industry, which we are all very well aware of. People have lamented for years that, of those billions of dollars, far too few of them find their way into the start-up sector, into innovative industries and into the world of technology—that they are index hugging. That is the criticism that has been made.
We are starting to see that change because of the leadership our government is offering and because of the encouragement we are providing. We are starting to see that shift. We saw late last year that the first state, New South Wales, committed funds to one of the leading financial technology innovation investment firms; there will be more along those lines. We are moving towards a culture of innovation. Every element of our policy is designed to do that: sorting out the construction sector, ending lawlessness in the construction sector and ensuring that more women on lower and middle incomes can get access to child care to raise female participation in the workforce. We are doing all of those things, and on not one of those measures is the opposition providing any support. They stand in the way of a 21st century economy.
Mr Mitchell interjecting —
The member for McEwen will resume his seat.
Mr Mitchell interjecting —
The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. The member for Lyons has the call.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. As the minister is aware, my electorate of Lyons contains a number of significant properties on the National Heritage List. Can the minister please update the House on the recent launch of the National Heritage Strategy and, in particular, the potential for additional sources of funding for our nation's built heritage?
I thank the member for Lyons, who is really one of the great champions of heritage in this House. His electorate includes, I think, eight of the 104 sites on the National Heritage List, including the famous Port Arthur, Woolmers Estate and Brickendon House. He has worked on a bipartisan basis with the member for Werriwa in establishing the Friends of History and Heritage in this place. He asked in particular about funding and the National Heritage Strategy. In terms of funding, we made $1½ million available for the upgrade of the Port Arthur penitentiary. The iconic penitentiary site is one of Australia's great built heritage sites. When we came to office it was in disrepair and at risk of collapse. And in just over a year the $1½ million, which was administered by the authorities in Tasmania, delivered a building which was safe, secure and a new place of national pride in terms of heritage restoration. In addition, we have also supported Woolmers estate to the tune of $300,000 and Brickendon House with an $80,000 grant.
Perhaps more significantly going forward, the member asked about the National Heritage Strategy. One of the items in Australia's first ever National Heritage Strategy is the proposal for a National Heritage lottery. The member for Lyons has been working constructively across the chamber with the member for Werriwa. We are working towards bipartisan support for this idea, which would draw from the best of the UK heritage lottery and also from the Western Australian model. It is a chance to build significant, additional funds and have it injected into heritage, or heritage and the arts, in Australia. We have already spoken with state environment ministers at the meeting of environment ministers in December, and there was a very positive response. We have spoken with the National Trust, ICOMOS and the Federation Of Australian Historical Societies. We are hopeful that we can build and create a new innovative form of funding where we are developing, on the same basis as the UK and Western Australia, a national heritage lottery. We hope that there can be bipartisan support and that this will deliver new funds on an expanded basis to achieve more than what we have done with just Port Arthur, Woolmers and Brickendon and secure Australia's heritage on an ongoing basis for the coming century.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister has already expressed confidence in the former Prime Minister, the former Treasurer, the former Minister for Cities and the former Special Minister of State does the Prime Minister still retain confidence in the current Minister for Human Services and Minister for Veterans' Affairs?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I can confirm that I have confidence in all of my ministers, including the Minister for Human Services. To save the honourable member's carefully orchestrated lead-up, which obviously relates to some media reports on the minister's trip to China in 2014—when he was in fact the assistant minister, the Minister for Defence Materiel—let me make the following observations. The minister travelled to China in August 2014 while on personal leave. His personal leave was approved, on behalf of the Prime Minister at the time, in accordance with the usual procedures. In relation to those media reports, I can confirm that I have asked the secretary of my department for advice in relation to the Statement of Ministerial Standards.
My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. Minister, what is the government doing to help build links between the people of Townsville and our sister city Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea?
I am pleased to get that question from the member for Herbert. I know that he has a high degree of enthusiasm when it comes to discussing Herbert and, in this case, the relationship Townsville has with its sister city Port Moresby. The relationship between Townsville and Port Moresby is a strong one. Less than two weeks ago I had the opportunity to travel to Townsville to meet with the member for Herbert for the launch of some upgrades to the YWAM medical ship. The YWAM medical ship is doing an outstanding job. The latest upgrades to that medical ship see improvements that will enable it to assist four times as many people in terms of the work it does throughout the regions of Papua New Guinea—in particular, in the Gulf Province and the Western Province.
When the member for Herbert and I took the chance to walk through the YWAM medical ship with volunteers, we got to see the great work that they are doing. The latest upgrades include a new dental clinic, a new radiology clinic and an operating theatre. They will be able to use these facilities to help improve the health of Papua New Guineans and the care that is afforded to them. In addition, it means they will be able to assist with things like immunisations and eye care. Alongside the member for Herbert, I saw the chairs on which they will be able to do cataract surgery on Papua New Guineas and help bring back sight to those who have lost their sight. These are important upgrades and they will be assisted by the more than 100 volunteers who give of their time working with YWAM and the medical ship to help transform lives. In that respect as well I was particularly delighted to see such strong support from the private sector in the Townsville community who donate their time and their money to helping that YWAM medical ship.
But the linkages are even more strong than that. The linkages also include, for example, the work that is done on the education front. James Cook University has very strong linkages through the Australia Awards. In fact, out of the 40 institutions in Australia that host Papua New Guinean students, James Cook University has the strongest contingent. Likewise in matters of defence—and everyone knows the strength of the member for Herbert's connection to the defence industry and defence forces generally—the 3rd Brigade recently completed their annual joint exercise with the PNG military. Population care, engineering and military planning are all matters where the defence forces between Australia and PNG are particularly strong. Also there is the humanitarian response—a key area where our Defence Force and the PNG Defence Force work alongside each other.
I think perhaps the relationship, as epitomised by the relationship in the sister city context between Townsville and Port Moresby, is best expressed by Prime Minister O'Neill, who said: 'In terms of the bilateral relationship, it has never been as strong as it has been since independence.' (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and goes to whether he has complied with the Prime Minister's Statement of ministerial standards. On the official Chinese visa application form for his secret trip to China—
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right!
What reason did the minister declare was the purpose for his visit: official visit, tourism, non-business visit, business and trade, or work?
Just before I call the minister I am going to ask the member for Isaacs to repeat the question. I am going to ask those on my right not to interject. I am going to ask the member for Isaacs to repeat the question. I want to hear it without interjection. There were some words I did not hear.
My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and goes to whether he has complied with the Prime Minister's Statement of ministerial standards. On the official Chinese visa application form for his trip to China, what reason did the minister declare was the purpose for his visit: official visit, tourism, non-business visit, business and trade, or work?
Before I call the minister I am going to point out at the outset that questions of this nature are problematic, and I am going to explain the thinking that I have. Standing orders make it very clear that ministers can only be asked questions about matters for which they are responsible. The Practice also makes it very clear that ministers cannot be asked questions about former ministerial responsibilities that they have had. It makes that very clear indeed. In fact, the member for Isaacs on 23 November asked questions of the former Special Minister of State specifically making a hook to the minister's ministerial responsibilities as Special Minister of State which is why on that narrow basis I allowed the questions. With respect to the ministerial code, the minister responsible for that is the Prime Minister. At this point I do not think the question is in order, but I am happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. It is rare—it happens a few times each year—that we have a situation where there is a question as to whether or not a minister has been in breach of the code. Parliament must be able to examine that and there is no way of examining that without asking questions of the minister himself, otherwise we would be in the absurd situation of being allowed to ask only the Prime Minister information that could only be known by the minister himself. So we are in a situation where the only way the minister can be accountable to the parliament as to whether or not he has acted in accordance with the ministerial standards is for the question to be allowed.
Mr Speaker, given that the minister concerned was travelling privately on a personal trip to China and therefore there was no cost to the Commonwealth of his travel—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs! The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
Opposition members interjecting—
I call the Leader of the House.
Mr Speaker, given that the minister was travelling privately to China at the time, this is not a matter that is within his ministerial responsibilities. How he filled out any particular form is not the business of the opposition or, in fact, the government.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Perth then left the chamber.
As you pointed out yourself, the ministerial code of conduct is a matter for the Prime Minister, not for the individual minister, so it is not possible—and nor is it appropriate, quite frankly—for the minister to answer this question. It establishes a very significant precedent, which is that members or ministers travelling on their own expense can be asked questions about their travel, whether it is overseas or domestic. This is a fishing expedition. This parliament is not a court of law. It is a parliament of the people and, therefore, this question is quite inappropriate. If the opposition want to ask the media to ask the member the question and he chooses to answer it, that is another matter but the chamber is not a place for cross-examination of ministers on areas that are not within their ministerial responsibility.
Mr Speaker, if I can merely add to one issue that has been raised by the Leader of the House.
Yes, briefly.
Clause 2.20 of the Statement of ministerial standards goes quite specifically to certain actions that can only be conducted in the official capacity of the minister. Therefore, we need to be able to ask when he said this was private whether or not he engaged in activities described in 2.20 of the Statement of ministerial standards. There is no other way of the parliament being able to examine this.
Mr Speaker, that point of order by the Manager of Opposition Business is an absolute red herring. If the opposition want to pursue this particular matter they have to pursue it outside the parliament and, if the minister chooses to cooperate, that is an entirely different matter. If they want to ask questions about the ministerial code of conduct then they need to ask the Prime Minister. If a precedent is established today that a minister can be asked a question about a private trip overseas, that is a very significant departure from the standing orders.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
Members on my left! The member for McEwen is warned. The Manager of Opposition Business on one final point of order.
Mr Speaker, on one final point of order: the clause that I am referring to, which leads to why the parliament must be able to pursue this, says:
A Minister shall not act as a consultant or adviser to any company, business, or other interests, whether paid or unpaid, or provide assistance to any such body, except as may be appropriate in their official capacity as Minister …
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting. I have obviously given this careful consideration and I have examined the practice carefully. For anyone who examines the practice carefully, on page 555—and I just happen to have it with me—they will see that it says, 'A minister may not be asked a question about his or her actions in a former ministerial role.' However, in a case when a minister has issued a statement referring to earlier responsibilities a question relating to the statement was permitted. There has been one case of that, in 2006. Beyond that, questions have not been allowed. That is certainly the practice and the history, I can assure the House, from the best of my research.
Whilst I want to see questions asked and answered, if this question had been asked some time ago, when the minister had different responsibilities, it would, clearly, be in order. But the minister responsible for the code of conduct is the Prime Minister, and it is the Prime Minister that makes the determination on whether ministers have complied with it. Having heard that patiently, and I apologise for detaining the House for so long, I am not going to allow that question and will move to the next question.
My question is to the Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects. Minister, the community of the Blue Mountains were recently invited to have their say on four possible options for the $5 million safety upgrade of the Great Western Highway intersection at Ross Street, Glenbrook. Could you please provide an update on the upgrade of this vital intersection?
I thank the member for Macquarie for this question. The member for Macquarie is closely engaged with the issues of concern to her electorate when it comes to infrastructure. She, in particular, has been working very hard on the question of the Ross Street intersection. Indeed, I was pleased to visit her electorate in December, last year, to inspect the site of the proposed intersection with the member and officials of New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services. This is an important project for the electorate of Macquarie. It forms part of the $3.6 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan.
This is the Turnbull government working together with the Baird government, the Commonwealth government working together with the New South Wales government to build infrastructure that will meet the needs of Western Sydney, that will boost economic activity in Western Sydney—an area where the population is expected to rise from two million to three million over the next 20 years. So it is very important that we are boosting transport links, that we are taking steps to respond to congestion to ensure that people can move about freely and to ensure that people can get to work and get home from work as quickly as possible, that freight moves about efficiently and, of course, that our roads are as safe as possible.
These are issues that the member for Macquarie has been assiduous and energetic in pursuing, and she was assiduous and energetic in encouraging me to come to her electorate to visit the site of the Ross Street intersection. This is going to be funded with $2.5 million from the Turnbull government and $2.5 million from the Baird government as the two governments work, together, very closely. It is this kind of local responsiveness to the needs of communities that is very important if our infrastructure is to do what we all want it to do.
There are four options that have been on display, for community comment, between 4 November and 11 December. It is now a case of the Blue Mountains City Council and New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services working together to assess the feedback, that has been received, to develop the design and the business case. I am confident that the Ross Street intersection will be safer, will meet the needs of the local community better and the member for Macquarie can take, I think, significant credit for her work in securing this outcome as part of a local roads package within the $3.6 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan.
My question is to the Prime Minister. It goes to whether the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has complied with the minister's statement on ministerial standards. Specifically, will the Prime Minister ask the minister, on the official Chinese visa application form for his trip to China, which of the following options were nominated: official visit, tourism, non-business visit, business and trade or work? And will the Prime Minister report back to the House at the earliest possible moment.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and I remind him of my earlier answer relating to the minister. The question of compliance with the ministerial standards has been referred to the Secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet, as honourable members know or should know. In questions relating to compliance with the code, the Prime Minister is entitled to and often expected to seek advice from the secretary of his or her department, Prime Minister and Cabinet. That is exactly what has been done.
I note the inquiry the honourable member has made and, no doubt, the secretary will do so too. But I deal with these matters very thoroughly and very seriously and in accordance with the code. And that is what will be done.
My question is to the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia. Minister, as you are aware, the cost of energy is a significant issue for people in my electorate of Petrie. Whether you run a restaurant or run a manufacturing business or run a household, these people would be interested to know, Minister: what is the government doing to help households and small businesses, in Petrie, control their electricity and energy costs?
I thank the member for Petrie for his question and acknowledge his hard work in this place for his constituents. He, like me, understands that this government has done everything possible to put downward pressure on electricity prices, unlike those opposite, who saw electricity prices increase by 80 per cent over five years. The way we brought electricity prices down in the past was through the good work of the member for Flinders, who abolished the carbon tax. As a result, we saw that energy prices fell by the greatest amount on record.
But electricity prices are a complex equation, with a number of factors influencing them. That is why this government is taking three particular steps to put downward pressure on electricity prices. Firstly, we are trying to empower customers. Secondly, we are putting in place the appropriate regulation for networks. Thirdly, we are trying to boost efficiency and productivity in electricity markets.
The COAG Energy Council, which has representatives from all states and territories, has committed to giving customers greater choice over their particular energy plan by aligning their energy use and consumption patterns with their particular plan of choice. The Australian Energy Market Commission says that this could reduce household electricity bills by more than $100 a year. COAG has also introduced new powers for the Australian Energy Regulator so that it can properly scrutinise network spending patterns so that customers do not pay any more than necessary. This is important because network spending comprises nearly 50 per cent of household electricity bills. Again, this measure could save around $100 a year for households. In December last year I launched the National Energy Productivity Plan, which seeks to improve energy productivity and efficiency by 40 per cent between now and 2030. We are working on improved standards for vehicles, buildings and appliances to boost productivity and efficiency, and that is absolutely critical.
The electricity markets in this country are in transition. We are seeing a greater use of renewables, we are seeing a greater focus on customer choice and we are seeing more appropriate, targeted regulation. For the member for Petrie, this is good news for his constituents. Households in Margate, Griffin and Bracken Ridge and companies that are major local employers in these areas, like Polyworld in Clontarf and Premier Pet in Narangba, are all benefiting from the low electricity prices that this government is driving by good policy.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.eoqt
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
During question time today that there was an issue raised on the management of the House with the resetting of the clock. I ask that you review the tapes between today and tomorrow, when you get the chance. Just to check, the normal practice has been that—
Mr Whiteley interjecting—
the member for Braddon will cease interjecting.
a reset occurs when someone is asked to rephrase. I ask that you review the tapes just to check whether that happened and take appropriate action.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The Minister for Immigration will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business will appreciate that I will not be revisiting the question, but I will certainly have a look for the future. I will either report to the House or I will report to the Manager of Opposition Business. It may well be that I was a little hard on the member for Sydney. I will have a look.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office located in Gosford, New South Wales.
On 13 May 2014, the then Treasurer announced that the government would open a new building on the New South Wales Central Coast for 600 Commonwealth employees. The Australian Taxation Office was named as the lead agency for this initiative aimed to boost employment and investment in the region. To achieve this outcome, the ATO proposes to commission an integrated fit-out of the new 7,350 square metre building at 20 Mann Street, Gosford, consisting of a lower ground floor, ground floor and levels 1 and 2. The new purpose-built Commonwealth office will support modern work practices and provide the ATO with the opportunity to develop a future-ready site aligned with the ATO's reinvention program.
Accordingly, the new premises will reflect the changing environment in which the ATO operates and provide contemporary, flexible and cost-effective accommodation within the region. The proposed fit-out includes modular work points, collaborative spaces, security systems, enhanced conference rooms, training and videoconferencing facilities, future-ready IT infrastructure, end-of-trip facilities to support staff wellbeing and shopfront facilities to support government agencies and their clients. Additionally, the new building provides an opportunity to strengthen the ATO's commitment to serving and engaging with regional areas, allowing the community to interact in person with the ATO. The estimated cost of the fit-out is $20.8 million excluding GST and includes all costs associated with the delivery of the project including provisions for contingencies, cost escalation and professional fees.
Subject to parliamentary approval of the fit-out, the developer will commence base building work on the site in August 2016. The proposed integrated fit-out works are scheduled to start in July 2017 and be completed by November 2017. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor will seek to amend this bill to bring forward the deadline for reporting company accounts from 2019 to 2018. Australia is a laggard rather than a leader in the Common Reporting Standard. This is an issue which is critical to the fight against multinational profit shifting. It is absolutely vital in the issue of tax enforcement. The work done by Labor through the G20, winning us the presidency of the G20, and work done through the OECD, ensured that Australia was at the vanguard of making a difference on multinational tax avoidance. Yet, since the Abbott-Turnbull government was elected, we have fallen to the back of the pack.
The government proposes that we move to the timetable not of the fastest countries in the world but to that of countries such as Russia. It is deeply disappointing that the government is unwilling to see Australia move on the Common Reporting Standard.
The Common Reporting Standard ensures that, for the first time ever, tax authorities automatically exchange information about the contents of company and individual bank accounts held overseas. Until now, multinational companies and wealthy individuals have often been able to avoid paying tax in one country simply by sending their money offshore so that tax authorities cannot see it. Under the OECD's Common Reporting Standard there will be fewer places to hide.
The former Treasurer had to be dragged kicking and screaming into signing Australia up to the Common Reporting Standard. Now, after finally bringing this bill to parliament, we can see the current Treasurer has further delayed the process, setting the deadline for implementing it way off into the distance. If the government was instead serious about stopping tax revenue continuing to drift offshore, they would ensure that the exchange of information about company accounts starts as soon as possible.
Unlike the government, Labor is not happy to let companies off the hook for another three years. We will move an amendment that will ensure that the exchange of information about company accounts happens in 2018, the same deadline the government set for reporting on individual accounts worth over $1 million.
As has sadly become the habit of the government, no explanation has been given for letting companies avoid scrutiny for another three years. There is no good reason for letting them off the hook for so long. I urge those on the other side of the chamber to support this amendment, as I do our colleagues in the other place.
Let's step back and look at the history of this issue. The Common Reporting Standard was an initiative of the OECD and G20 base erosion profit shifting project. The OECD-G20 BEPS project made a conservative estimate that globally between US$100 billion and US$240 billion every year in revenue is lost through base erosion profit shifting.
Clearly the economic effects of lost revenue are a source of consternation for the rest of the international community. But, beyond the direct economic effects, as Angel Gurria has noted, the continued presence of multinational tax avoidance leads to an erosion of trust in the fairness of tax regimes. It leaves taxpayers across the advanced world to say, 'If multinational firms are not paying their fair share, why should I?'
In 2013 the OECD launched an action plan into these concerns about base erosion and profit shifting. The OECD is hardly antiglobalisation. Indeed, it notes that globalisation 'supports growth, creates jobs, fosters innovation and has lifted millions out of poverty'.
I am a passionate internationalist. But I am also aware that, as national economies have become more globally integrated, so have multinational firms. The global scope of some of the world's largest companies and their increasingly sophisticated tax planning have allowed them to exploit opportunities to minimise their taxes. Governments receive less revenue to fund public services, and domestic taxpayers face a greater burden. It also puts smaller enterprises and companies operating only in domestic markets at a competitive disadvantage.
By implementing the Common Reporting Standard we create a due diligence framework for financial institutions to report to the Commissioner of Taxation about financial accounts held by foreign tax residents. This information will be provided by the commissioner to foreign tax authorities and, in exchange, foreign tax authorities will provide information about Australian tax residents' financial accounts information. This will be an automatic process.
Information exchanges are an important part of a transparent multinational tax regime. So important is information exchange that over 40 countries will begin reporting a year before this government would have Australia do so. Those countries include the UK, South Africa, Iceland and India. Australia is not a laggard because of factors outside our control. Australia would be a laggard because of choices of the Abbott-Turnbull government.
When the group of early-adopter countries laid out their timetable for exchanging information on corporate accounts, they described it as 'ambitious but realistic'. On this side of the House, we believe that combating multinational tax avoidance needs to be ambitious but realistic too. Throughout 2014, Labor repeatedly called on the former Treasurer to join this group of early adopter countries. Australia was conspicuously absent from the list, despite previous consultations with business and the financial sector on implementing these reforms. The government chose to sit on their submissions for months.
The former Treasurer, Treasurer Hockey, finally committed Australia to the Common Reporting Standard in late 2014, alongside all 34 OECD nations. Globally, 96 jurisdictions are now committed.
Under the timetable proposed in this bill, the first exchange of information between Australia and other countries takes place in 2018. That puts Australia behind the majority of signatory countries to the Common Reporting Standard, and aligns us with countries such as the Bahamas, Russia and the United Arab Emirates. In this bill, financial institutions must complete identification and reporting of high-value pre-existing individual accounts by 31 July 2018. They will be required to identify and report on lower-value pre-existing individual accounts by 31 July 2019.
For reasons known only to the government, they have opted to align the deadline for reporting on the accounts of corporations with that of low-value individual accounts. The government's proposed two-stage implementation process lets big companies off the hook until 2019. That is the proposed date of the election after next. While banks will have to report on the accounts held by high-net-worth individuals in 2018, the government is proposing a 2019 deadline for corporate entities. That is not good enough. They have given the Australian community no explanation for this. It suggests that this is hardly a government that is champing at the bit to tighten the global tax net.
Labor does not believe there is any good rationale for delaying reporting on corporate entity accounts by a full year. This information should be provided to the tax authorities as soon as possible. That is why we are moving an amendment on bringing the deadline for reporting on corporate entities into line with that of high-net-worth individuals. It is why I have moved that amendment.
We know that many Senate crossbenchers share our deep concern about big companies avoiding paying their fair share of tax. We would urge these senators to support Labor's amendment and ensure the Common Reporting Standard starts capturing information about companies' bank accounts sooner rather than later.
I would also take this opportunity to flag that we will be talking with our colleagues in the Senate about further possible amendments to increase the transparency of the data provided under the Common Reporting Standard. We believe it may be in the interests of our developing-country neighbours and the tax debate globally for the Australian Taxation Office to publish aggregated, de-identified information about how many accounts and what value holdings foreign nationals have in Australia.
Some of our neighbours have not yet signed up to the Common Reporting Standard. Letting some of our near neighbours in the region see how many of their citizens have financial accounts in Australia may provide an impetus for them to sign up to the Common Reporting Standard.
Labor has long argued that transparency is key to combating tax avoidance—transparency for the public, not just for tax authorities. After all, it is unlikely that the Liberal government would have moved to adopt its recent multinational tax changes at all, were it not for the recent public outcry brought about by the Senate tax inquiry led in particular by Senators Ketter and Dastyari and the disclosure of tax details under Labor's transparency laws for large firms.
You will hear, perhaps, in this debate a suggestion that Labor did not support the government's multinational tax avoidance bill. We did. We announced from the moment it had been mentioned on budget night that we would support it—even though, when you look at the budget papers, there is a series of asterisks where the revenue estimates should be. But, despite the fact that the government could not tell us what it would raise, we said we would support it. The only stipulation we had was that we wanted to make sure that there was transparency as well. Transparency and better laws go together. At a time when the government was attempting to water down transparency, we did not think it was reasonable to have those changes made. So we fought for transparency. We consistently told the government that, so long as they supported the tax transparency laws brought in by Labor in 2013, we were happy to support their uncosted multinational tax bill.
But the government's attempts to let multinational companies put off better scrutiny of their financial affairs through the Common Reporting Standard should not come as any great surprise. It comes on the back of their decision to help firms which have a turnover of over $100 million to hide from tax transparency in 2015. That again shows that the Liberals are not serious about making sure that big companies pay their fair share of tax.
Of course, the government last year needed a hand in helping rich companies keep their tax dealings secret. In a late-night closed-door deal last December, the leader of the Greens and the Treasurer agreed to raise the threshold for tax transparency from $100 million to $200 million, which put the majority of large private firms outside the transparency net—another one of those dirty deals done pretty expensively for the Australian taxpayers, for which the Greens have become famous in Decembers: in 2009 it was killing the CPRS; in 2015 it was winding back tax transparency. With a $100 million threshold, transparency laws would have applied to about 900 private firms, but two-thirds of those large companies are now exempt from transparency laws, thanks to the Greens and the Abbott-Turnbull government.
Despite the Liberals' best efforts, though, the transparency report published by the Australian Taxation Office in December last year did publish the affairs of public companies and it showed why we need to continue taking action at home and overseas to close down loopholes and opportunities for tax avoidance. The tax office report revealed that one in four companies earning over $100 million paid no tax in Australia in 2014—not one dollar. Those are the numbers that the Liberal government did not want you to see. Those were the numbers that show that in the energy and resources sector 57 per cent of multinational firms paid no tax, while in the banking and financial sector the figure was 45 per cent. Australians are quite rightly now looking to these firms to explain why they do not seem to be contributing in the same way that individual taxpayers and hundreds of thousands of small businesses do.
Every dollar that is sent offshore or minimised through a convenient loophole is a dollar that cannot be spent on things that matter, a dollar that has to be raised from other taxpayers. It means that we either have to tax ordinary taxpayers more or things like hospitals, schools and a liveable pension come under sustained attack, as they have been since this government brought down its first budget in 2014.
At the same time as the government is giving large firms an easy ride with higher tax transparency thresholds—or, as is the case today, pushing back the timetable for exchanging information about corporate accounts—the government is actively considering a higher GST. A government that persists in going softly-softly on companies paying their fair share wants to go hard, hard, hard on households by hitting them with a tax on consumption. They will tell you that the Prime Minister has ruled it out. Yet we heard in question time today that the Prime Minister singly failed to rule out a 15 per cent GST. It seems that the only time this government adopts the line 'Go early, go hard and go households' is when it is really going hard on households, when it is thinking about cutting the services that households rely on, cutting back on schools and hospitals or raising taxes on low- and middle-income Australia.
An increase in the GST by 50 per cent would not boost growth. The Japanese economy went into recession after they raised their GST from five per cent to eight per cent in 2014. It would worsen inequality at a time when inequality is at a 75-year high. Affordable housing is increasingly out of the reach of the average Australian household. And, in one generation, earnings for the top tenth have risen three times faster than earnings for the bottom tenth. As NATSEM modelling shows, raising the GST to 15 per cent takes three per cent of the top quintile's disposable income but seven per cent of the bottom quintile's disposable income. In other words, it hits the bottom twice as hard as it hits the top. So, instead of taking the fight to those companies that do not pay their fair share of tax, the government wants to push a consumption tax on low- and middle-income earners that will make the problems even worse. It will not help growth, but it will worsen inequality.
I am sure that, when it suits the member for Cook to have a debate about tax reform, he will tell this House that he cares about multinational tax avoidance, but what he actually cares about and what he actually does are two very different things. When it came time to vote for Labor's sensible changes for multinational tax avoidance in 2013, the member for Wentworth and the member for Cook voted against them. When it came to tax transparency and Labor's changes to keep open tax transparency, the member for Wentworth and the member for Cook voted against them. And when it came time to support Labor's fair and sensible changes to multinational loopholes, changing the debt deduction rules and the rules around hybrid instruments to add $7 billion to the budget bottom line, the member for Cook and the member for Wentworth argued against them. They will not support fair changes that will see fair taxation of multinationals; instead, they want to go hard on households.
This amendment is in exactly the same spirit. It is an opportunity for the member for Wentworth and the member for Cook to show the Australian people that they believe that big companies cannot dodge their tax contributions any longer in Australia. I urge the Treasurer to support an amendment which, in the words of the OECD, is ambitious but realistic. We ought to be able to commit to an ambitious but realistic timetable that takes us with 40 other countries in the world in exchanging tax information and getting a better deal for the Australian taxpayer. If the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are serious about multinational tax avoidance and if they are serious about getting tough on the big end of town, they will support this amendment as the right course of action.
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 Fraser 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 amendment be agreed to. The question therefore now is that the amendment be agreed to.
The coalition is determined to do what is needed to protect Australia's tax base and ensure that all Australians and all who do business here pay a fair share of tax. Indeed, Australia is leading global efforts to crack down on tax avoidance despite Labor's political scare campaign and their cynical games aimed at opposing, white-anting and frustrating this critical tax reform agenda. I welcome the Tax Laws Amendment (Implementation of the Common Reporting Standard) Bill 2015 as another example of Australia's international leadership in the fight against tax avoidance. Globalisation and other technological advances have made it easier for individuals to hold investments in offshore financial institutions. This increases the opportunity for tax evasion. However, better reporting standards and cooperation between international financial institutions and the tax administrators in other countries will provide a powerful weapon in the fight against cross-border tax avoidance.
In specifically targeting cross-border tax avoidance, a competent, measured, coherent and collaborative approach—one that works in concert with other tax administrations around the world—is required. Importantly, the Common Reporting Standard is an international framework developed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, working with non-OECD G20 countries, to tackle and stop cross-border tax evasion. By participating in this international effort, we are enabling the Australian tax office to gather information on Australians who may choose to dishonestly hide foreign income offshore. The standard will build on the ATO's current information exchanges and will require banks to identify and report on the tax residency of customers and their accounts.
Cross-border tax evasion is not a uniquely Australian concern, but it is a global problem that threatens the integrity of our public finances. This undermines community trust in our tax system. Unlike Labor, the coalition are committed to creating a fair tax system that will help our economy become more adaptable and agile while enabling increased diversification. That is why we began a comprehensive review into Australia's tax system through the tax white paper process, a critical part of our plan to reform the economy and provide real opportunities for Australians to work, save and invest.
To achieve this, the government is continuing a tax discussion and review process which promotes a community-wide conversation on how we can create a fair tax system that supports high economic growth, higher living standards and jobs. In aligning these objectives within the purpose of this bill, let me be clear that the additional tax revenue that could result will not by itself wipe away Labor's debt, nor could it possibly fund Labor's big-spending election promises.
However, this reform is not insignificant either. Improved transparency, including the ability to exchange taxpayer information between tax authorities, is critical to improving tax compliance and reducing tax evasion. Total tax liabilities raised as a direct result of exchange of information with Australia's treaty partners was about $255 million for 2014-15.
If Australians and others who live, work and invest in Australia have bank accounts in other countries then the implementation of a common reporting standard, together with better arrangements for the exchange of tax information on request between tax administrations around the world, will give the Australian tax office and other agencies even more capacity to fight tax evasion. This bill is estimated to deliver a small but as yet unquantifiable revenue gain over the forward estimates of up to $10 million over the next two years and larger unquantifiable gains beyond the forward estimates of up to $100 million.
The root causes and symptoms of cross-border tax avoidance are not new, and cross-border tax avoidance is a problem faced by most countries. This means international cooperation and sharing of information between tax authorities is essential to fighting it. In this regard, Australia is leading global efforts to crack down on tax avoidance. This has not happened overnight, nor has it happened by accident. So I was quite incredulous last week when I heard the opposition leader ask the Prime Minister what the government was doing to rein in potential tax evasion by multinational companies. The reality is that when the government introduced an amendment to the taxation laws to combat multinational tax avoidance last year the Labor Party lined up on the same side as the big tax dodgers and voted against it. That is right. Do not listen to what the former speaker said. The Labor Party voted against it. Unlike Labor, the Turnbull government is determined to tackle it in a comprehensive and strategic way.
The coalition is proactively responding to the final reports on the OECD Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, including a new country-by-country reporting regime. As the Prime Minister pointed out, actions speak louder than words. The Turnbull government has already actioned key initiatives to stop multinational tax avoidance which Australia delivered as G20 President, including tough new measures that came into effect from 1 January 2016. Multinationals are now required to report to the Australian Taxation Office their income and tax paid in every country in which they operate. Multinationals who avoid paying their fair share will have to pay back the tax they owe plus interest and also face penalties of up to 100 per cent of the tax owed. In effect, the coalition government pushed forward legislation to give the Australian tax office the 21st century tools to combat ingenious 21st century tax avoidance to collect that money. These measures were legislated and passed through the Senate last year, but, notably, Labor opposed them. For the record, Labor voted against them.
On the problem of cross-border tax avoidance, Labor's track record in government and in opposition has been to quietly shift from long-term ignorance and inaction to speaking loudly, squealing hysterically and achieving precisely 100 per cent of nothing. As I said earlier, a coherent, competent and measured approach to dealing with these concerns, one that works in concert with other tax administrations around the world, is what is required.
In this regard, the G20 leaders endorsed the common reporting standard under Australia's presidency and committed to begin to exchange information from 2017, with information being exchanged by tax offices from 2018. The standard is comprehensive in the different types of investment income to be reported, including interest, dividends and income from certain insurance contracts. On top of this, financial institutions will be required to report account balances and sales proceeds from financial assets. The standard is also comprehensive in the different types of account holders covered, such as individuals and the controlling persons of companies, partnerships and trusts.
To date, more than 95 jurisdictions have committed to implementing the standard, including former tax secrecy jurisdictions, such as Luxembourg, Switzerland, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey. While the names of some of these places triggered a madcap response from those opposite last year, a basic lesson in international finance and investment practices is instructive. For those opposite, who were carrying on hysterically last year, let me present the facts again. Most hedge funds have an onshore US based entity and an offshore one so that non-US investors can receive their income without the US withholding tax. Tax is generally only paid once on the earnings of Australians; therefore, the consequence of an Australian investor investing in a managed fund located in the Cayman Islands, for example, is that all of the income paid to that Australian investor is taxed in Australia and this money is paid to the Australian Treasury. Why on earth would Labor want more tax revenue to go to the US instead of coming back to Australia to help pay down the debt they left our country? Why on earth would Labor line up with the big multinational tax dodgers and try and stop the ATO collecting the money we need for schools, for hospitals and for roads?
I note those opposite put the cart before the horse when former Treasurer the member for McMahon announced that Australia would implement the common standard early, even before the timing of the international program was finalised. Those opposite, clearly, are trying to walk on water before they can swim. The reality is that an expedited implementation of the standard before our financial institutions are ready and capable would impose very high compliance costs on them. These costs, invariably, would not be borne by them but would be passed on to Australian consumers. For this reason, Australian financial institutions will be required to implement the standard on 1 July 2017, which is consistent with the time frame agreed to at the G20.
I thank and congratulate the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer for bringing this bill forward now to allow Australia's financial institutions to get ready for the changes all fair-minded taxpayers demand. This bill will help ensure all taxpayers pay their fair share of tax, by providing tax authorities with information on individuals with offshore accounts, regardless of where their financial accounts are located. Importantly, there will be greater voluntary compliance as more taxpayers know that it has just got a whole lot harder to hide funds offshore without the tax office tracking you down. This will improve the integrity of the tax system by rebuilding community confidence in our tax system. I commend the bill to the House.
In seconding the amendment, which would bring forward the tax transparency provisions and the application of the Common Reporting Standard, I think that it is very important that we do talk about what can be done to improve tax transparency and to crack down on tax dodgers in this country. That is why I am so pleased to second this amendment, because, unlike the Turnbull government, my actions are consistent with my words. I say we should crack down on tax dodging, and I want us to crack down on tax dodging. That is why I am seconding this amendment.
If the Turnbull government were going today to arrest its tendency to say one thing and do the other, then it would be voting for this amendment that is before the House today; it would be voting to bring forward the tax transparency obligations under the Common Reporting Standard; and it would be voting to support Labor's amendment, because, unlike the coalition, we are serious about cracking down on tax dodgers. We are serious about saying what we mean and doing what we say—unlike the Turnbull government, headed by a Prime Minister who is Australia's answer to Sir Jeffery Archer, a man who is doing his best to make sure that it is the most important and exciting time in the history of the world to be a tax dodger in Australia!
We have heard coalition speakers get up in this debate and say, 'Oh, Labor didn't vote for our tax bill at the end of last year.' Why would we vote for it? We stand for transparency. We believe in transparency. We believe in cracking down on multinational tax evasion and on tax dodging. That is why in 2013 we introduced greater transparency laws, to ensure that people and companies pay their fair share of tax—like you do, Deputy Speaker Scott, and like every working Australian does in this country. We introduced those measures. What does this government do? This government comes in and says: 'You know what? If you're a firm of $100 million in turnover, you should be exempted from transparency provisions.' What an utterly ridiculous and disgraceful act from this government, which is the best friend that tax dodgers ever had! Why would we vote for that legislation? Why would any sensible member of this place vote for that legislation? Why did the Australian Greens vote to water down tax transparency, one might ask.
In this place, when it comes to making sure that people are paying their fair share of tax, we say and we have always said that transparency matters—that seeing and knowing what companies are paying and what they are doing is very important in ensuring taxation compliance. It is the disinfectant of sunlight that helps the Australian people make sure that people and firms who are making profit here are making their fair contributions to the services on which we all rely—to building roads, to building infrastructure, to paying for health care, to paying for education. We think it is fair that if you do business here then you pay tax here and make a contribution to the Australian community. It is a principle that everyone in this place ought to share. Instead of standing up and grandstanding and instead of standing up and having a go at Labor for having the gall to say that $100 million turnover firms should have transparency obligations, what the coalition should be doing is supporting this amendment, the Labor amendment to improve taxation transparency right now today. They should support this amendment.
I am very pleased that this government is finally getting to the point of passing legislation to implement the Common Reporting Standard. In 2014, Australia was the president of the G20. You could be fooled into not realising this because our Prime Minister was talking about the GP tax at the G20, but most of the world's leading nations were talking about base erosion and profit shifting. There was a strong agenda for base erosion and profit shifting to be combatted and for the international community to work together. I was pleased when the then Treasurer committed Australia to supporting the Common Reporting Standard, but it took another year—a full 12 months—for the exposure draft of the Common Reporting Standard legislation to be released to the Australian public.
It is a shame that Australia has lagged behind the international community when it comes to the implementation of the Common Reporting Standard. I want to say something about why the Common Reporting Standard is so important. In the introduction to its report, which was titled Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Information—Common Reporting Standard Report, the OECD said:
As the world becomes increasingly globalised it is becoming easier for all taxpayers to make, hold and manage investments through financial institutions outside of their country of residence. Vast amounts of money are kept offshore and go untaxed to the extent that taxpayers fail to comply with tax obligations in their home jurisdiction. Offshore tax evasion is a serious problem for jurisdictions all over the world, OECD and non-OECD, small and large, developing and developed. Countries have a shared interest in maintaining the integrity of their tax systems. Cooperation between tax administrations is critical in the fight against tax evasion and in protecting the integrity of tax systems. A key aspect of that cooperation is exchange of information.
That is what the report said.
The Common Reporting Standard allows authorities to automatically exchange information about the contents of company and individual bank accounts held overseas. Multinational companies and wealthy individuals have often been able to avoid paying tax in one country simply by sending their money offshore to another jurisdiction so that tax authorities cannot see it, but under the Common Reporting Standard there will be far fewer places to hide. Over 90 countries will now exchange information about what is held in bank accounts in their jurisdictions so that authorities can more accurately assess tax bills and better identify profit-shifting and aggressive tax planning. It is the kind of coordinated, positive outcome that is possible when governments around the world come together and take the challenge of tax avoidance seriously.
Multinational tax evasion is an issue to which this government, the Turnbull government, had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Last year Labor announced a PBO-costed, carefully considered $7.2 billion package of measures to stop multinationals shifting their profits out of Australia and avoiding paying their fair share of tax. We are strongly of the view that there ought to be a commitment to the Common Reporting Standard by this country. We have also indicated that we will support the measures such as they have been from the coalition to crack down on multinational tax evasion now that they have been dragged kicking and screaming to doing so, even though in last year's budget the Treasurer at the time was unable to tell the Australian people how much their own measures would raise, giving us only a serious of asterisks. But, as I have said, that means making sure that companies are paying their fair share of tax through compliance and through transparency. Transparency actually matters. As I have said, it should not be left to law-abiding companies and Australian households to bear all of the tax burden while big firms are shifting their profits overseas and evading their tax obligations.
As well as facing up to tax evasion as an issue for our own budget domestically, we also need to be working with the international community to tackle this global problem because of the impact that it has on developing nations as well. The size of the foreign aid budget internationally is dwarfed by the value of tax that is evaded in developing countries by large corporations. In other words, if large corporations pay their fair share of tax in developing countries then that will assist the world in making sure that those developing countries are able to reach their potential. Those developing countries are missing out on their entitlement to a fair share of taxation revenue and, as a consequence, that obviously means greater demand for aid.
Analysis by one.org shows that at least a trillion dollars each year is being siphoned out of developing countries. It is revenue that could be used in the fight against extreme poverty, disease and hunger. It costs lives and it undermines the efforts of developed countries' aid commitments. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that every $100 million recovered from tax dodging and corruption could fund full immunisation for four million children, provide water connections for some 250,000 households or fund treatment for over 600,000 people for HIV-AIDS for a full year. In its Shine the Light campaign, Micah Challenge points out that most of the money flowing out of developing countries is not taken by corrupt politicians and dictators but by large multinationals who exploit loopholes in the global tax system to shift their profits away from the countries they operate within in in order to avoid paying tax. While all countries are being robbed of revenue through tax evasion, it is developing countries that suffer the worst. When multinationals and wealthy individuals avoid paying taxes, everyone else has to either pay more tax or go without services. When firms do not pay their fair share, it means that the rest of us suffer; it means the rest of us have to pay more tax than we otherwise would have to, or we have to forgo government provided services.
As I have said, the impact on developing countries is devastating—denying them the need to be self-sufficient and making them dependent on aid and debt. So, putting an end to tax dodging and corruption will help in the fight against global poverty and, as I have said, putting an end to it here will lessen the need to ask households to front up and pay more. This is a government that has been hanging a GST increase out in front of people for months: 'Will they, won't they? Will they, won't they?' We have a Prime Minister in Prime Minister Turnbull who has refused to come clean with the Australian people about the coalition's plans on a price rise on everything or the coalition's plans to extend a GST to health care, food and education fees. We have a Prime Minister who thinks that middle-class households should bear more of a tax burden in order for there to be tax cuts—personal income tax cuts—for the people at the top of the income distribution and for companies. This is the sort of government that is the big firms' best friend. They do not care about the fact that middle-class households would be asked to pay more of a tax burden under an increased GST. They do not care about the fact that small businesses would suffer, not just because of the increased compliance obligation from having to retain more money across more items for GST but also because the customers of those same small businesses are wage earners. If you increase the price on everything for wage earners at the same time as you are mounting an attack on their wages via the attacks on penalty rates then small businesses will suffer because those are their customers.
This is a government that does not care about small business; it is a government that does not care about working people. It is a government that has done everything it possibly can to reduce tax transparency for its mates—the big firms earning $100 million in revenue every year. A firm earning $100 million in revenue should not have an exemption from tax transparency provisions
It certainly should not. The Australian people deserve to know that firms with a turnover of $100 million are paying their fair share of tax—just as you are, Deputy Speaker, and just as every person who is earning a wage. We are all expected to pay fair share of tax. Big firms—firms that turnover $100 million or more and multinational firms—should be expected to pay their fair share as well.
We want the common reporting standard put in place as soon as possible. It is so disappointing that the Abbott and now the Turnbull government has committed us to a timetable which sees Australia lag behind most of the OECD and other advanced economies. More than 40 countries will begin exchanging information in 2017. The group of so-called early adopter nations includes the UK, Argentina, France, Germany, India, Italy and Mexico, as well as many EU members. Over the past two years, Labor has repeatedly called for the Liberal government to sign Australia up to a timetable that matches these early adopter countries.
As I said, it was fantastic at the G20 Finance Ministers' meeting in September 2014, that the then Treasurer committed us to the CRS, but it was a real shame that in the year in which we were the president of the G20, he squibbed the opportunity for Australia to take a leadership role by joining that the early adopters group. Instead, the Turnbull government has dragged its feet in bringing forward this legislation, and Australia will not begin exchanging information with other countries until late 2018. That lines us up with countries like the Bahamas, Russia and the UAE, rather than with the leading G20 nations—hardly the actions of a government that is eager to crack down on multinational tax evasion or to tighten the global tax net.
Worryingly too, the government has proposed a two-stage implementation process that will let big companies off the hook until 2019. While banks will have to report on the accounts held by individuals in 2018, the government is proposing a 2019 deadline for corporate entities. It is not good enough. The government should vote for Labor's amendment today. We do not believe there is any good rationale for delaying reporting on corporate entity accounts by a full year. There should be one reporting deadline, 2018, to ensure this information is available sooner. In moving the amendment to bring the deadline for reporting on corporate entities into line with that of individuals, we know that many of the Senate crossbenchers share our deep concern about big companies avoiding their fair share of tax. The Turnbull government claims to share this concern, but as with every other issue, they say one thing but they do another. Do not listen to what the Turnbull government says, looks at its actions. What are those actions? The government says it is cracking down on tax evasion while at the same time they are weakening transparency for firms with a turnover of $100 million.
We would urge those senators on the crossbenches to support our amendment and urge the Turnbull government to get serious about tax evasion. (Time expired)
I have been on this matter for quite some time. I have been a bit like dog with a bone—a major dog with a bone—on this matter for quite some time and particularly on the way many of these companies structure their affairs which flows through to pricing. I know that the member for Mitchell used to chip me and tease me about some of the things I raised in relation to pricing on software. We have had those discussions previously. It reflected a serious concern that the way in which hardware and software were being priced was in part driven by a recognition that, if that transfer pricing regime between a parent and a subsidiary were conducted in a particular way by recognising taxation arrangements in a specific country, it would be beneficial for the company but detrimental to the country in which the product was sold. I have always had a concern that we in this country have had inflated prices that in part reflect these arrangements.
This is something I have been on about for some time but I also remember the front pages of the Financial Review, when the member for Wentworth was the shadow communications minister. He was getting huge runs in the Financial Review, talking about his concern on how taxation arrangements were being gamed by big companies and how it would undermine the revenue base of governments across the world. As we often discover with the member for Wentworth, the tough talk is replaced by the cowards walk. You never see him actually follow through—he gets the headline, he gets the coverage, he gets the kudos and the feel-good moment; but he is never actually there to follow it up. We see it yet again, after he has said that he would be doing X, Y or Z to deal with this issue; we have seen very little.
We are seeing more dragging of the feet on this matter, and we cannot afford for this to continue. That is why we have argued through the shadow Assistant Treasurer the amendments we have and why we will continue to place our concerns at the forefront. We are guided in part by the reaction at the tail end of last year of the collective intake of breath by Australians across the nation, when they saw what big companies which have a capacity to pay were paying or, should I say, not paying—not contributing. As the member for Griffith rightly notes, when you compare what they have failed to do with the expectation on low- and middle-income earners to bear a heavier load—as with some of the ideas being actively considered by those opposite while others are get off scot free. It is simply unacceptable.
We are not the only jurisdiction to be concerned by that. In the US, I remember the Levin committee, which investigated Apple's taxation arrangements, a few years ago identified that Apple had $100 billion offshore. That estimate has recently been revised to $200 billion—massive amount of money. For five years Apple did not have corporate headquarters registered in any jurisdiction to oversee their affairs. Having said that and having been critical of that, my big concern in this debate will sound obtuse. When you look at the work that many of these firms are doing, particularly the tech firms around the globe, they are responsible for great changes—economic changes, social changes—and they have a lot to contribute. The continuing arrangements that they are prepared to abide by, I argue, undermine the moral authority of this sector.
The longer they maintain these arrangements in the absence of an effective government response—as is evidenced by the bill we are currently debating—the further they undermine their standing in the eyes of the community. They also undermine, for example, the way their own employees feel about them. I would not be surprised if employees in some of these major firms that are doing great things internationally are now more and more reluctant to tell others who they work for on the basis that their company is viewed so negatively by the public that they do not want to be associated with it.
The sector's ability to argue its value to the broader society when it is maintaining these practices impacts unfairly on smaller players in the sector. We on both sides of the fence are committed to encouraging greater early stage innovation in this nation. We on both sides of the House are prepared to change government policies—for example, taxation arrangements—to encourage that. But some would say: why would we change these taxation arrangements when the big players are not pulling their weight, when they deliberately set up their affairs in a particular way to avoid their obligations in this jurisdiction? It is a pretty tough question to answer. I say again that the sector is having its moral authority, its value, undermined by these taxation arrangements and, given the importance of the sector in the long term, it can ill afford that.
I want to make an observation in relation to international cooperation. The member for Griffith named some of the countries that have already signed up to the Common Reporting Standard and pushed for us to tackle this. I note in particular that the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, has been on this issue for quite some time. You cannot make legal changes in one jurisdiction, because this is a global issue and the community should work together. The tech sector's argument is: 'You bring in the standards and we'll follow the law.' And yet countries are well aware that, if they bring in differentials, this will simply accelerate and worsen a situation in which a lot of these major companies game the system and pick which country they go to to get the best taxation arrangements.
I would argue that one of the jurisdictions that is holding us back on this is the US. What happens is that when the tech companies say, 'Get the global standards in place, get the laws in place and we'll follow the laws,' they then go back to the US congress and agitate for a defiance against the international push to have this rectified in a uniform, common way. We have already seen stirrings in the US congress that will make it harder to get international consensus on this front. That is an issue of great concern. The US cannot expect to have a situation in which other countries' taxation and revenue bases are undermined by these types of practices and yet it gets its own slice. As I said before, Apple has $200 billion in revenue offshore. At some point, I imagine, the Internal Revenue Service is going to want a slice of that. They want to be able to prioritise their slice. But we argue that we should not think as individual jurisdictions. The most effective response is a global one, and it will require us to all think as one on this. But it cannot be a cute situation in which global tech companies tell people in a jurisdiction such as Australia, 'You put the laws in place and we'll follow the laws,' and then go and lobby the US congress to frustrate international efforts to get this done. They can, by all means, come out and say that what I am saying is wrong—it is up to them to do so—but it is clear that someone within the US jurisdiction is being urged to follow this up. That cannot be sustained and it cannot be argued for.
I am dismayed at how long it has taken for us to make progress on this. Those on the other side often make bold pronouncements about the way in which they will move on this, and it has taken ages to do so. Having said that, I also think the onus is well and truly on these companies. We have recently seen Google agree to make a back-payment of 130 million pounds in tax in the UK following discussions with the government there. Some have observed, fairly, that that is not necessarily a massive amount of money for a global concern like Google. But there is some headway being made there, and it is a requirement to continue that elsewhere.
Those firms cannot continue to argue that they are making the world a better place through what they are doing while at the same time undermining revenue bases in other parts of the world. That is simply unacceptable. You cannot have investments in, for example, education, science and research and development if your revenue base is being undermined by these types of arrangements. As I said, the moral authority of the sector is being affected by this.
In conclusion, I come back to the observation that, while we have had the tough talk, we have not seen this government 'walk the talk'. They are happy to get the headlines but they are not happy to do the hard work. Our view is that the faster we move on this the better. We cannot afford delay. I support the amendments put forward by the member for Fraser.
I rise to sum up the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Implementation of the Common Reporting Standard) Bill 2015. I thank the members on this side of the House who have contributed to this debate. I say to the opposition: could you please put an end to the confusing speeches about combating multinational tax avoidance. The House has before it only one amendment, but people listening to this debate might think from the opposition's comments that the opposition has a great concern about multinationals paying tax. But members of this House will recall that on the last sitting night of 2015, here in this chamber, the government debated its Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015. They kept us here until the middle of the night. Yes, it was the House's view that we should gag the shadow Assistant Treasurer, the member for Fraser. It was a popular view in this House that we should gag the shadow Assistant Treasurer because he is quite verbose.
Back to the important substance of the matter: the Labor Party under Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, and Chris Bowen, the shadow Treasurer, voted against the government's measures—the Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015. The Labor Party voted against it. I want to say to the Australian public that the Australian Greens voted for the government's bill. You may think the Greens are from the hard left of politics, but they are more economically responsible than the Australian Labor Party. They voted with the government for our bill, our measures, to make sure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax. There is only one political party in this country that voted against the government's measures to introduce multinational tax arrangements and that was the Australian Labor Party.
Once again today you would think this was some sort of controversial matter. This matter is completely noncontroversial. This bill is about implementing an agreed position with the OECD—the common reporting standards. That is the agreed position with the OECD. The Labor Party have one pious amendment before us today—that is it. You would think from listening to them that they had put a series of complex amendments to this bill. The amendment before this House is:
… “while not declining to give the bill a second reading—
so they have learnt something from 2015; that is, they are not going to oppose this bill—
the House condemns the Abbott-Turnbull Government for making Australia a laggard, not a leader, in implementing strong measures to stop multinational profit shifting.”
So their only amendment is to attach to this bill a Greens style set of words to have a crack on the way through. No substantive amendments to this bill have been proposed to this House—none. There are no substantive amendments to this bill so every speech you have heard from the Labor Party has been about nothing. We are debating nothing yet again. The shadow Assistant Treasurer is here arguing for measures that he has not even had the gumption to put forward in technical amendments.
You might have a look at this.
I would like to. I would like to hear your view on it, because this is all we have got before us. How do we make the law in this country? How are you making law in this country? Have you consulted with the sector, like the government has? We have consulted with multinationals and we have consulted with the banks to understand that the financial year in Australia operates from 30 June to 1 July, unlike most European countries, which operate on the calendar year. There are reasons why this is happening six months later than in other countries. You simply come into this House and put in a ridiculous, infant like, pious amendment to this bill to have a crack on the way through when the government is implementing the common reporting standard in agreement with the OECD—negotiated agreement with the OECD—to ensure that we have the right measures in place so we can commence this at the start of our tax year. Nobody in Australia would find that unusual or unacceptable and yet the Australian Labor Party are once again here in this chamber trying somehow to make out that the government is not doing the right thing on multinational tax.
I want to make this blatantly clear to the Australian public. We are doing the right thing by Australians. We are doing the right thing by our economy. We are doing the responsible thing by our economy. We are patiently and calmly implementing bills and measures to ensure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax in this country and we are doing it in cooperation with the G20 and in cooperation with the OECD, as part of the BEPS process that was established under Australia's leadership at the G20. It is the Labor Party at every turn that are opposing this. They voted against the measures that this government put forward. The Australian Greens supported it. The Australian Greens knew these were responsible measures and the Independents knew these were responsible measures. It is the Labor Party that felt they could have some sort of political game with multinational tax. It is something every single member of this House agrees on and it is something that jurisdictions around the world understand—all laws need to be tightened and cooperation between countries and jurisdictions is vital to ensure that base erosion and profit shifting is taxed appropriately and becomes an option of the past.
Let us look at the actual bill, not at the ridiculous, pious amendment we have in front of us from the shadow Assistant Treasurer. That is the only thing we have a copy of. Members of this House will note that this is the only thing we have before us. I want to say that this standard of course will tackle and deter offshore tax evasion. Financial institutions in Australia are going to be required to collect information on a foreign resident's accounts and report it to the ATO. The ATO will provide the information to the foreign resident's tax authority. In exchange the Australian Taxation Office will receive information on Australians with offshore accounts and use it to ensure they are complying with their domestic tax obligations. G20 leaders endorsed the standard under Australia's presidency. For the shadow Assistant Treasurer I want to say that again: G20 leaders endorsed the standard under Australia's presidency—under this government and its determination to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
We have all committed to begin to exchange information by 2017 or end of 2018, depending of course on how your country operates with its tax and financial years, which—for the shadow Assistant Treasurer—does differ from country to country and does have serious implications if you attempt to by some imaginary amendment simply adjust a schedule without serious negotiation with those people you are going to affect—not just large multinationals but also smaller banks. Have you thought about the cost that will be passed on of course to customers just by simply exercising some imaginary complaint about this issue? This is an agreed position with the OECD. It is a negotiated position that will ensure that we meet our obligations. Indeed, over 95 jurisdictions have committed to implementing it, including former tax secrecy jurisdictions, importantly: Luxembourg, Switzerland, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey. We can see real progress being made on this front, something all members of this House ought to support and ought to welcome the government's initiatives on.
In summation I want to say again that if you are serious about multinational taxation and combating anti-avoidance then you ought to be supporting this government's initiatives. The Australian Greens have supported this government's initiatives in combating anti-avoidance measures. The Independents have supported combating anti-avoidance measures. The Australian Labor Party need to drop their pious attitude towards the government's approach and get on board and understand that we are methodically working with the OECD and all other jurisdictions to implement those laws and measures necessary to ensure that we deal with this problem that has faced modern economies. So I say to the opposition: stop the resistance, join with the government, support us on the Tax Laws Amendment (Implementation of the Common Reporting Standard) Bill 2015 and please stop with the pious amendments and all of the nonsense.
I thank the honourable assistant minister. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 15 (cell at table item 6, column 2), omit "2019", substitute "2018".
(2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 16 (lines 22 to 33), omit subitem (3), substitute:
Statements
(3) Despite subsection 396-105(6) in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953, to the extent that a statement under subsection 396-105(2) in that Schedule for 2017 relates to an account that is a Lower Value Account (within the meaning of the CRS), the statement must be given to the Commissioner no later than 31 July 2019.
Note: Section 388-55 in that Schedule allows the Commissioner to defer the time for giving an approved form.
It is a sad day for this House when the assistant minister—who has now been in this place for nearly a decade—gets confused as to the periods in the debate when one moves a second reading amendment and when one moves a detailed amendment. As a member of nine years standing ought to know, the time for moving a detailed amendment is now, and I am now doing so.
This detailed amendment—moved at the proper time, Assistant Minister—is not a controversial one. It simply suggests that Australia's timetable for implementing the Common Reporting Standard should be the same as those of the 40 countries that are moving to implement corporate reporting in 2018. That would bring corporate reporting into line with the reporting for high-income individuals. It is not a controversial amendment. It should be supported by any government worth its salt. Any government that is interested in taking multinational tax avoidance seriously ought to be willing to move on the Common Reporting Standard in line with other countries.
I foreshadowed this amendment, in my second reading debate speech, earlier. It is a very straightforward amendment, one which simply changes the date in a bill. It does so to ensure that Australia is not a laggard when it comes to dealing with multinational tax avoidance. Multinational tax avoidance, sadly, is a problem that the government likes to blow a lot of hot air about but is unable to act upon.
Here is a test. Just as last year we had a test on the final day of parliament, when Labor made absolutely clear that we were supporting the government's multinational tax avoidance bill despite the fact that that bill was completely uncosted—had asterisks in the budget where the revenue measures were but we always said we would support it—we simply said we believed in transparency as well. Sadly, the Greens and the Liberals did not believe in transparency.
Shame!
They conspired to take the majority of private firms out of the tax transparency net. As the member for Batman so passionately argued, the Greens simply went to damp kale when it came to dealing with the issue of multinational tax transparency. They sided with the Liberal Party.
They sold out!
It was a debate in which the Greens, as the member for Batman has noted, simply sold out—just as they did on the emissions trading scheme, just as they did when they lined up with the government to raise Australia's debt cap to an unlimited level, a debt cap that is now, clearly, going to be needed given that this government's return-to-surplus target has been pushed out to post 2020. It is a government that came to office saying it would deliver surplus in the first year and in every year after that. It is now saying it will not deliver a surplus this term, it will not deliver a surplus next term but maybe it will deliver a surplus of the term after that.
Let's face it, even that is in jeopardy, because we have the Treasurer out there saying that he is going to crack down on bracket creep—failing to tell the Australian people that bracket creep is the primary means by which his government intends to return the budget to surplus. Take away bracket creep and they have no hope of delivering a surplus budget, because they are unable to go tough on multinationals.
We on this side of the House have a $7 billion plan, which closes debt deduction loopholes and the use of hybrid instruments, which makes changes that are economically responsible, carefully costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, informed by work done at the OECD. Yet while we are willing to back their multinational tax bill they are not willing to back our multinational tax measures. While we are willing to back their multinational tax bills, which simply have an asterisk where the costings should be, they are not willing to back our multinational tax package that adds $7 billion to the budget bottom line over the course of the next decade.
This amendment, now, is a test as to how serious the government is on the issue of multinational tax avoidance. Does the government believe that we should be with the rest of the G20 and OECD pack, with the other 40 countries that are moving at an appropriate time on the Common Reporting Standard, or should we be trailing up the back of the pack with the countries that are not really serious? This is a test for this government on multinational tax avoidance. Will it support Labor's amendment or will it turn to damp kale one more time?
I do not think it would shock members to understand that the government will not be supporting these amendments. Once again, I would say to the shadow Assistant Treasurer that if they were serious about this bill, the Common Reporting Standard and the measures before us, they would have voted for the multinational measures that we put forward.
At the end of sittings, last time, the minister at the table, for no reason at all, gagged the shadow Assistant Treasurer, and no reason—I will draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed)
I was just saying that of course the government will not be support these amendments. We say to the opposition: if you had wanted to do something serious, you had the chance last year to support the government's tough measures on addressing anti-avoidance measures for multinationals. I say again—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member no longer be heard.
The question now is that the amendments be agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I speak tonight on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015. Labor will not oppose the measures in this bill. We do accept the task of budget repair and of course we always have. But what we on this side of the House believe is that budget repair needs to be done in a fair and equitable way. We think this task can be pursued without punishing those Australians who are already struggling to make ends meet. This has been our fundamental guiding principle since the Liberals handed down their disastrous 2014 budget.
Since then, we have agreed to sensible savings where they do not offend the fundamental principles of fairness. We agreed to reduce the cut-off for family tax benefit B from $150,000 to $100,000 a year. More recently, we agreed to changes to family tax benefits when we thought they were fair, and we opposed the government's reckless attempt to reintroduce the baby bonus as part of the Prime Minister's deal with the National Party. Today, we will agree to some further savings. In fact, in total, since the 2013 election, there are more than $9 billion in savings that Labor have supported—$9 billion in the area of social services and child care. These savings have not been easy, but we do understand that they are necessary and we will take them, as I said, when we think they are fair.
The task of spending restraint is one that we do take seriously. It is the case, of course, that we differ from the government in a fundamental way: we do not agree that the cuts should hurt vulnerable people, and we make no apology for that. So we will continue to fight the government's unfair cuts to families, their harsh and unfair cuts to pensioners and their cruel cuts to young job seekers. I am sorry to say these cuts are still in the parliament and they are still in the budget.
Just today, two other bills in the social services portfolio are before the House, and Labor will not be supporting those bills. We are strenuously opposed to the very harsh cuts to family payments that will leave some Australian families around $5,000 a year worse off—cuts that will leave around 1.6 million families and three million children worse off. We are also opposed to the government's cuts to pensioners, its scrapping of the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment. These cuts are harsh, they are unfair, and we will fight them all the way to the next election. But, as I said, we are prepared to accept the more than $200 million in savings outlined in this bill today.
This bill does two things. Firstly, it will reduce from 56 to six weeks the period during which family tax benefits can be paid to an individual who is outside of Australia or in respect of a child who is outside of Australia, starting from 1 January. This will deliver a saving to the budget bottom line of around $42.1 million. It is important to note—and I know some people have been concerned about this—that portability extension and exemption provisions that allow longer portability under special circumstances will continue to apply. This includes, for example, situations of illness or accident that prevent people from returning to Australia.
Secondly, this bill will abolish the large-family supplement from 1 July
The supplement is part of family tax benefit part A and is currently paid at the rate of $324.85 a year, or $12.46 a fortnight, for the fourth and each subsequent FTB child in the family. This represents a saving of $177.3 million over the forward estimates. Cessation of the supplement is consistent with reports from NATSEM and recommendations from the Henry tax review in 2010.
Those opposite like to say with some regularity that Labor never cooperates with them when they propose changes that are in the national interest.
Mr Whiteley interjecting—
We hear, right on cue, from the member for Braddon, who says that repeatedly. I will remind him, yet again—I know he does not like to listen to facts, but these are the facts—Labor has actually supported around $9 billion in savings in the social services and childcare portfolios, so any argument that we are not up for sensible conversations about fair savings is wrong.
We should not forget the Abbott-Turnbull Government's record on budget repair. The deficit has doubled on their watch over the last 2½ years, despite all the rhetoric about a budget emergency, which most of them do not mention any more, but which we heard so much about in the early period of their government. Despite all the harsh cuts, this government under Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull have actually doubled the deficit. That is an extraordinary outcome. For the purposes of this bill, we will support these changes and, as I said, we will support other changes where we see them to be fair.
Our economics team has been leading the debate on tax reform, laying out fair, responsible plans to tax multinationals fairly, reduce unfair superannuation tax concessions and increase the tobacco excise. These are responsible measure, and we have been debating them for some time.
Opposite, in their so-called tax debate, we see only complete disarray when it comes to tax reform. They do not seem to know what they stand for or what to do. They, especially the current Treasurer, spent all last year arguing against changes to superannuation. Now it looks like they might even embrace what we are doing. We know they desperately want to increase the GST, although they do seem to have got the wobbles on that change as well. The government is in complete and total chaos when it comes to tax reform. So much for the new economic leadership that the Prime Minister promised the Australian people when he knifed the member for Warringah.
In summary, Labor will support this bill today but we will not compromise on fairness, particularly when it comes to Australian families. We want to put people first. It is because of Labor that the Turnbull government has backed down on two harsh cuts that would have hurt families. We protected families from their plan to freeze family tax benefit rates and certain eligibility thresholds, and because of Labor's pressure the Turnbull government finally scrapped its appalling cuts to grandparent carers. We have managed to protect those people so far, and we will keep up the pressure to protect families from further unfair cuts.
Today I stand to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015. In doing so I am supporting the government's strategy to bring expenditure on social services under control and to ensure the system's sustainability and longevity.
I am sure there are very few who would disagree with me when I say that Australia's social services system is one that we as a nation can be very proud of. I believe we Australians care about each other. We help those in need and we look after each other. To be frank, we are the envy of the world. I suspect that this is one of the driving reasons behind the decision of so many people to bypass many other countries to get on unsafe boats and seek refuge in our country.
Our social services system reflects this attitude of caring and looking after one another. Our social services system is comprehensive. On average, approximately one-third of Australians are accessing some form of government payment of subsidy. However, with such a broad system comes a degree of overlap, complexity and, dare I say it, more often than we would like, noncompliance. For the average Australian this makes it challenging to understand which payments are eligible for, how much they can receive and what details of each payment might be. I am sure that members on both sides of the House are familiar with the scenario where constituents come into our offices with an armful of Centrelink paperwork. They are at the end of their tether because they cannot navigate the complex labyrinth of social security payments in Australia.
The scale of our social security system makes it one of the strongest and most comprehensive systems in the world, and it is a financial safety net that exists for Australians that is one of the greatest strengths of our society. If we are to have a social security system that is fair, it must also be fair on future generations of Australians. It is not always just about us. More often than not, it is about those who come after us. A system that is not sustainable, costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year and is the fastest growing area of government expenditure is of concern. It is not fair on our children or our grandchildren, who will be saddled with debt after years of what we all now know as Labor budget blow-outs. In the years that Labor was in government, from 2008, Labor delivered deficits totalling $191 billion. If the budget were to have been left on the trajectory that Labor set it on, an additional projected deficit of $123 billion over the forward estimates would have increased that deficit further.
I will digress for a moment and refer to the previous speaker, the shadow minister, who got to her feet so proudly and said that she has had enough of the members of the government saying that the opposition, the Labor Party, will not support our savings measures. I have never said that they will not support them; I have mostly said they will not support most of them. She got to her feet very proudly and said, 'We've helped to save $9 billion.' That is over the forward estimates; it is not today, tomorrow or this year. It is over the next three or four years.
Let me reiterate: in the six or seven years that they were in charge, there were $191 billion of deficits. On top of their projected deficits, if we had not fixed it up or tried to fix it up without any help from them, it would have been another $123 billion. So it was $123 billion worth of deficits and she stands so proudly at the podium to declare, 'We've helped save $9 billion.' Thank you, but whoop-de-do! There is a lot more hard work to be done. When the hard work needs to be done, you look over your shoulder to have a look to see who is behind you and you will not find the Labor Party of Australia, that is for sure. We simply cannot continue to spend taxpayers' hard-earned money in the way that we have been, led obviously by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. We cannot continue it. It is unsustainable.
The bill before the House today, combined with other bills that have come before the House, seeks to simplify our social security system and bring the social security bill to a level that is sustainable into the future. This bill implements two key measures: firstly, the portability of the family tax benefit will be reduced to six weeks and, secondly, the large family supplement will be removed. Both of these measures are carefully planned and implemented, with targeted exemptions that I will detail.
In reducing the portability of family tax benefit part A and payments that rely on family tax benefit B, eligibility will be paid for six weeks to recipients who are outside of Australia. This measure will save $42.1 million across the forward estimates and, importantly, there are safeguards in this change to protect families who are overseas advancing Australia's interests. For example, members of the Australian Defence Force or Australian Federal Police who are deployed overseas will not be impacted by this change. Exemptions extend to those who are unable to return to Australia for a valid reason. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services will retain discretionary ability to extend the six-week portability period to up to three years.
It is made clear by this legislation that, for the payments to continue, the receiver of the payment will need to demonstrate a strong connection to Australia. I would say that I would doubt there would be too many Australians who would disagree with that eligibility criteria. The social security system is a residence-based system and is designed to help Australians living in Australia with the costs associated with that living in Australia. However, to maintain fairness and equity in the system, safeguards are in place to ensure that those who are serving our country overseas or those who cannot return through no fault of their own are not unfairly disadvantaged. This is a good part of this change.
I support the changes to the portability of social security payments and, as I said in the House in speaking on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill just last week, the standard we apply in our social services legislation should also extend to past politicians' pensions, as far as I am concerned. If we are to reduce the portability of this to six weeks, we should also reduce the portability of past politicians' pensions. I have written to Mr Porter and Mr Cormann asking that they consider this. I support fairness—I am speaking on it here today—and I support equity for Australians. I strongly believe that the standards applied should be applied to all Australians.
I do not see how it is fair to allow former prime ministers in particular to pretty well pack their bags, leave the country and still be able to collect their pensions at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. I think if we are going to talk about fairness and equity, that is something that we should be looking at. No-one is suggesting that they should not travel overseas and fulfil the role that we would seek them to fulfil as past prime ministers from whatever side of the parliament. But when someone packs their bags and basically moves to New York or takes up a professorship in a university somewhere around the world and kisses us goodbye for a year, half a year or two years, I do not see the fairness in that. I have written—as I have said—to Ministers Porter and Cormann, seeking them to at the very least have a look at that.
The second measure in this bill is the cessation of the large family supplement, which will save the taxpayers $177.3 million over the forward estimates. Whilst it is a small component of the family tax benefit A, the total savings are significant. This government is committed to ensuring that the social services system is as efficient and cost-effective as possible. There has been consistent evidence from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling that each additional child in a family costs less than the previous children. As families grow, some of the costs incurred in preparing for the first child do not recur.
This may be a particular matter of interest to you, Deputy Speaker Vasta, as your own family grows. I am sure that you will be pleased to hear that it gets cheaper. They are cheaper by the dozen! You will only have nine to go! It has been reported in the most recent research findings that a family's second child costs 83 per cent of the first, while the third child costs 69 per cent of the first. Mr Deputy Speaker and anyone else who might be interested, you go on long enough and you get the last one for free! They would cost you nothing, if that is true!
This clear trend in costs to families makes it quite clear that this change is both sensible and an improvement to the social services system. Removal of the large family supplement has had significant support from a number of review bodies, not least to mention the Henry tax review; the National Commission of Audit; and the McClure reviews, of which there have been a couple. They all support the removal of this payment. As the McClure review stated:
The removal of one supplement helps to simplify what is such a complicated system for families.
The removal of this payment is one small step towards making our social security system simpler, fairer and better targeted so that the people who it is designed to support can better understand and access it.
Those opposite could sit there and oppose the bill, but thankfully they are not doing so on this occasion by the sounds of it. But when they have their constituents ask them why the social security system is complex and not understandable, I hope that they will reflect on those other bills that they have refused to support and try to offer an explanation to their constituents as to how this government or any government may in fact fix the problems. But I do not understand why they would choose not to assist us in that.
In 2015-16 the government will spend approximately one-third of its total expenditure on social services, of which approximately $20 billion—that is, $20,000 million—will be spent on family tax benefit payments. The total saving of around $200 million that this legislation provides represents just one per cent of the $20 billion that we are talking about with family tax benefit payments. I believe this is a very reasonable and fair measure when compared with the generous payments that will continue to be available to families.
If the Labor P arty had not spent so much money and built up such high levels of debt, these and the many other measures we are attempting to address would not have been be necessary. The reality is that the Labor debt mess means we are spending $100 million per day more than we are receiving.
Mr Feeney interjecting—
The member opposite has no shame. He shakes his head as if it were not true. Well, it is true. Every day, we as a country are spending in excess of $100 million more than we are receiving. Every day, we need to pay well over $30 million in interest payments alone just to cover the debt that was wholly and solely accrued in the time of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. They started with a clean sheet, with money in the bank, and we ended up in a debt and deficit disaster. These savings measures that I stand to speak on today are appropriate, fair and reasonable. They allow us to take steps toward reining in the debt disaster that Labor left us. We cannot continue to spend the way the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government did. Despite every effort by those opposite to stand in our way, we will continue to do what is right and prudent for the people of Australia and those that will come after us.
I commend the bill to the House.
I rise with pleasure to speak in support of the Social Services Legislation (Family Measures) Bill 2015. This bill seeks to amend the New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999. There are a number of measures in this bill, but I think it is first worthwhile to reflect on the quality, the breadth, of our social security system, which is regarded as one of the best social support systems in the world. This bill seeks to make a number of changes to the act. It seeks to reduce to six weeks the period during which family tax benefit part A and additional payments that rely on family tax benefit eligibility will be paid to recipients who are outside Australia from 1 January, 2016. This bill will also cease the Large Family Supplement from 1 January, 2016.
The government acknowledges the important role of parents in the primary care of their children and maintains a wide range of programs and payments to support them. Currently, the government spends a substantial amount of money in three main areas of family support each year, including around $20 billion in family tax benefits, around $6 billion in childcare benefit and around $2 billion in paid parental leave. As I said earlier, the depth and breadth of our social security system provides enormous support to people in our community who require it. I think all of us in this House recognise the importance of maintaining the integrity and longevity of that system.
This government is committed to supporting parents in caring for their children. However, it must be balanced to ensure family assistance and social security payments are well targeted and sustainable into the future. In my electorate of Forde, there are thousands of hard-working families who rely on government programs and payments to support them as they raise their children. I want to assure families that I will work with the government to ensure we provide a sustainable family tax benefit system that will continue to support them well into the future.
The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015 contains two measures that are designed to assist with the necessary task of budget repair to get us back on a steady path to surplus as well as ensure government support for families can be maintained for the long term. As part of these measures, the government will reduce from 56 to six the number of weeks FTB part A can generally be paid when a family is overseas. This measure is expected to save Australian taxpayers more than $40 million over the forward estimates. More importantly, it ensures that our family tax benefit payment system meets its objective of helping families to raise their children in Australia.
Currently, family tax benefit part A recipients who are overseas can receive their usual rate of payment for six weeks and then the base rate for a further 50 weeks. Strengthening the family tax benefit residence requirements will better ensure family assistance payments are targeted to those families who have a strong residence connection to Australia. Importantly, this change will not affect members of the Australian Defence Force or the Australian Federal Police who are deployed overseas; individuals assisted by the Medical Treatment Overseas Program; and those unable to return to Australia for a specified reason such as a serious accident or natural disaster.
Family tax benefit recipients who stay overseas for more than six weeks will have their payment stopped. If an individual stops being eligible for family tax benefit under the amended portability rules and returns to Australia within 13 weeks of the end of their portability period, FTB will be restarted where appropriate without a new claim. This measure will align the portability rules for family tax benefit part A with those of family tax benefit part B and most other income support payments.
The second measure in this bill will cease payment of the large family supplement from 1 July 2016. The supplement is a component of the family tax benefit part A and is currently paid at the rate of $342.85 per year for the fourth and each subsequent child in the family. Modelling by NATSEM in 2002, 2007 and 2013 consistently found that each additional child in a family costs less than the first child. In 2010 the Henry tax review recommended that the large family supplement be abolished, as the policy rationale behind the payment was not strong. The National Commission of Audit reiterated this position in 2014 by stating that the basic rates of family tax benefit part A were sufficient for the cost of raising children. More recent research has found that on average a second child costs families 83 per cent of the cost of the first child, while a third child costs families 69 per cent of the cost of the first child. The reason for this being that families experience economies of scale in which fixed costs are spread among more children. This research highlights the appropriateness of the modest change to the family tax benefit part A payment structure, which was recommended by the Henry tax review and the National Commission of Audit.
Cessation of the large family supplement in 2015-16 will affect approximately 383,000 families. Nearly all families who lose eligibility to the large family supplement will continue to receive family tax benefit part A, which provides assistance to families in meeting the day-to-day costs of raising their children. Cessation of the large family supplement is expected to save Australian taxpayers more than $175 million over the forward estimates. The measures in this bill will provide ongoing savings to the budget. It is imperative that these measures are undertaken as we continue to focus on the process of repairing the budget after six years of profligate spending by those opposite.
Importantly, this is about ensuring that we have a social security system that is sustainable in the long-term to supports our families and those in need—those who need that assistance, not just the current generation or those currently receiving those payments but those who in the future require this support and assistance. It is so we on this side of the House—or those opposite, if they are ever in government again in the next little while—have the financial capacity to support those in our community who need that support and to achieve the outcomes that our social security system was ultimately set up for—to support those most in need. I commend this bill to the House.
I am pleased to rise tonight to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015, which introduces two measures. It makes changes to the portability of the family tax benefit and it makes changes to the large family supplement. Why are these changes necessary? The simple reason is that this country had six years of reckless and wasteful spending by the former Labor government, which ran up debt and deficits year after year. Even after all the hard work this coalition government has done and even after all the savings we have made and the heartache we have gone through to make those savings, with expenditure that has been locked in we are still, as the member for Braddon noted, borrowing $100 million every day. In fact, here in Canberra it is now a little after 6.30 in the evening. In the six-hour period between 6 o'clock and midnight tonight we will need to borrow another $25 million just to keep government functioning. It is completely unsustainable for us to continue in this fashion.
In this debate the member for Jagajaga talked about the fundamental principles of fairness. It is completely unfair to future generations of Australians if we continue to borrow money and leave them with higher interest repayments and debt. It will mean they will have a higher rate of taxation and a lower rate of government services because this generation could not balance the budget. That is why the steps in this bill are necessary.
I get annoyed when I hear members of the opposition yell out from the dispatch box. During this debate we heard the member for Batman, who is currently sitting there, and the member for Jagajaga say that the coalition has doubled the deficit. We know the principle behind that. It has been said that, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe you and you may even believe it yourself. The coalition has done no such thing as double the deficit. This is a complete distortion; it is a fabrication. It is misleading the Australian public for any member of the opposition to make such a claim.
It has been through an ABC fact check. You know that, don't you?
Oh, the ABC Fact Check; that's it. Hallelujah! The ABC Fact Check proved that it is true. That is right; always rely on those ABC fact checks, yes.
They don't always get it wrong.
This year, as I said, we are still looking at a deficit of $37 billion. Yet we still have members of the opposition whingeing and complaining when we try to do the hard yards, making the cuts we need to bring this budget back to deficit.
During this debate the member for Jagajaga said that Labor's proposed tobacco excise increases are responsible. I would like to see smoking rates in this country reduced to zero. But Labor's proposal to raise $47 billion by increasing the tobacco excise means that Labor plans to slug smokers with a tax of another $20,000 per smoker—that is, $20,000 extra tax paid by the smokers of this country. That is Labor's grand proposal. They borrow tax, borrow some more and spend. Do they not have any understanding of—if you try to put an extra $20,000 tax onto smokers of this country—what that will do to the black market for cigarettes? Have they given any thought to that? Obviously not, from what we have heard from members of the opposition.
Onto the measures of this bill. Firstly, it addresses the portability. This shows how generous we are with our social security and welfare payments in this country. Even after this, you can take your family on holiday overseas and you will still receive the family tax benefit for up to six weeks. This is even the cut after this bill. The primary purpose of our family assistance payments should be to assist Australian families raising their kids in Australia. Yet we have portability that allows parents to take their children overseas and obtain this for six weeks.
If we do not make these cuts now, the cuts we will need to make in years to come will be much harsher. Already, we are paying—every single year—$13 billion in interest on Labor's reckless and wasteful spending and the debt it incurred. I look around my electorate and see the things we need to do as a government. And to think that $13 billion, this year, has to come out of government revenue and simply go to paying the interest. It should make us all sick. But that is what we have to do.
The important thing to note in this bill about portability is that it does not affect our Australian Defence Force or our Australian Federal Police deployed overseas. They are exempt from this. Also, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services retains discretion to increase the six-week time frame for up to three years. Where there are circumstances of family illness or tragedy, the secretary has discretion to extend it.
The second change made to this legislation is to cease the large family supplement. Let me make it very clear so there is no misunderstanding what this is. Everyone will still receive a per child family tax benefit payment. But there was an additional payment for a family that had a fourth and subsequent child. That is being removed. If you look at the cost base, for a family, for each child a family has the cost reduces. In fact, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling found that this is exactly the case: for each additional child, the costs become less. They found that on average the second child costs 83 per cent of the first child. The third child costs 69 per cent of the first and so on. There are almost economies of scale, if you would like to say so, for the number of kids you have. I am sure that when you get to a certain number diseconomies of scale may well cut in.
These are, simply, small targeted measures that we need to take. We would rather not take them. I am sure that everyone here who sits in this parliament would not like to make any particular cut whatsoever, because we know there are people who would be affected by them. But if we are to do our jobs as members of parliament—when it comes time for us to step aside from this House and look back at the work we have done, we want to be able to say that we fought to try to balance the budget, that we did not leave future generations with that debt from our spending. We still have a long way to go.
These are just two small measures: changes to the portability of the family tax benefit, a saving of $42 billion over the forward estimates; and the cessation of the large family supplement, a saving of $177 billion. They are very significant amounts of money but only a small drop in the bucket of what we need to do to get this budget back to balance. It is something we all need to work on and take responsibility for without the harping, whingeing, whining and misleading statements from the opposition. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
It is good to have this opportunity to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015. When we look back upon what has happened in the history of our country since 2007, it really does set the scene for what has come to pass. As the member for Hughes put so well, it has come to this. It has come to someone actually stepping up to the plate and having to make decisions to take these sorts of measures off the table and to modify the measures that are contained here: the portability of family tax benefit and the ceasing of the large family supplement.
Of course, in a perfect world, where everything is in black ink and not red ink, there would be no problem and it would be nice to be able to do it. It would be nice to be able to have supplements all over the place. But this sort of recurrent spending is just not sustainable anymore. We have been put in this situation. We have to look at these sorts of measures and we have to make these sorts of decisions because it is the right thing to do. It is the thing you have to do when you look to the future as a government and when you look at what the future could entail if we did not wind back the spending.
Yes, it is true that, thanks to what has happened in China, iron ore is no longer worth as much as it used to be. It is now maybe back to even less than historical levels, and that is a challenge that faces us. The commodity sector has been very good for this country, and we no longer have those sorts of things to back us up. I remember during the six years of the Labor government they talked about us squandering the benefits of the mining boom. This was when we actually had surpluses before 2007. If we talk about the allegations of squandering the proceeds of the mining boom, Australian people do not need to look that far back—only to the six years between the end of 2007 and 2013, when there was a change of government again.
This is the reality that really does present itself to us now. So when we look at measures like this—savings of $42.1 million for a change to the portability of family tax benefit and around $177 million for the ceasing of the large family supplement over the forward estimates—they are not big figures, but they are important steps. It is a signal to the nation that we are no longer in the situation where we can afford to do these sorts of things, where we can afford to say, 'You can go overseas and you can continue to be paid this sort of money for the more than six weeks that you are away,' with the exception, of course, of those Defence and Australian Federal Police personnel that are posted overseas and people like that. With the exception of those sorts of people, no longer can we be in the situation where we can afford to keep paying, and I do not think that it is unreasonable either. I do not think the Australian people can look out there and say, 'People should be allowed to go overseas and continue to be paid the family tax benefit under the current arrangements before this bill comes into effect.' I do not think Australians would say that what we are doing here is an unreasonable thing. I think the country knows that we have to take steps to rein in expenditure in the face of much-reduced revenue. So I do not think that it comes as a shock; I do not think it comes as a surprise. It is not as though people are being left destitute by either one of these measures. That certainly is not the case.
It is similar with the ceasing of the large family supplement. It is not as though each child does not attract a per-child payment. It is not as though that is not the case. But this large family supplement was something on top of that The point has been well made regarding the cost, and I do not for a moment suggest that the cost of raising four, five or six children is small by any means. But it is not as though the cost becomes exponential. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling in 2002, 2007 and 2013—and even the Henry tax review—came to the conclusion that the additional cost of raising those additional children is not 100 per cent as you have more and more children. There is no doubt that it is not easy—it is clear that it is not easy and the costs are still there—but, in fact, there is no real justification for including $177 million extra of this recurrent expenditure that we can no longer afford in the budget bottom line. As I have said before, in a perfect world, where there is a surplus every year, you might start looking at these sorts of things. I suspect that, in the future, when we get things back into the black, if there were expenditure to be made, as a first priority, it would be more along the lines of things that are going to have some tangible, economic benefit that is going to produce jobs and increase the economic output of the country. But, as it currently stands, we are not in a situation where these sorts of matters can be carried on.
I certainly endorse the substance of this bill. These savings are the savings that need to be made. These savings are important to be consistent with the circumstances that the country is now in, and I think the Australian people absolutely will support this. They do think that something needs to be done, and these measures are the measures that are required to bring things back to a more sustainable level of spending. We still have a long way to go—there is no doubt about that—with regard to balancing the budget. Much has been proposed on the savings side by the government. It is sad and unfortunate that the approach is not agreed with by all within the parliament. There are obviously many people who think that things can carry on and that increasing taxes on smokers is the way to bring things back into balance, but what we actually need to do is concentrate on reining in expenditure, not increase taxes.
To conclude, these two measures are important. We must achieve the savings. It is hard to believe sometimes, when I talk about $42 million and $177 million, that they are in some way modest or small numbers, but they are most definitely important numbers. It is vital for us to work to achieve these sorts of savings. Again, I believe that the Australian people, when they look at the substance of these measures, will see that these are good things to support and that, ultimately, they just must be done.
Without further ado, I certainly endorse this bill and commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015. I advise the House that I must be getting old—I must be getting old because I am about to launch into an 'In my day' tirade. When I was young, family life was reasonably simple. When I was young, it was a reasonably simple thing to raise a family. It was reasonably simple to do anything. Most pushbikes did not have brakes. You did not have to wear boots or helmets or pads to play cricket. You went to school barefoot, and away you went. It was so simple.
Families have become so complicated in our lives, and there is no greater measure of the complication in which we see our lives than this bill. Can I go through these points. We acknowledge the role of parents in the primary care of their children and maintain a range of programs and payments to support them. Is that necessary to say? Do we really have to be in that space? Currently, the government spends a substantial amount of money in three main areas of family support each year: around $20 billion on family tax benefit, around $6 billion in childcare benefit and childcare rebate and around $2 billion in paid parental leave. If I had a pin board behind me, we could, with red woollen thread, connect the dots and show how complicated this map actually gets—and we wonder why we are afraid of reform in this country.
The government's commitment to supporting parents in caring for their children, however, must be balanced with the responsibility to ensure that family assistance and social security payments are well targeted and sustainable into the future. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015—this bill—contains two measures that are designed to assist with the necessary task of budget repair required to get us back on a steady path to surplus and ensure that government support for families can be maintained into the future. This is the whole thing. Basically, from the Whitlam government all the way forward, we have been driving down the road as parliaments, as governments and as oppositions throwing money out of the window at everyone and wondering why we are not getting the results we should.
The government will reduce the number of weeks that FTB part A can generally be paid when a family is overseas from 56 weeks to six weeks—known as portability. Currently, FTB part A recipients who are overseas can receive their usual rate of payment for six weeks and then a base rate for a further 50 weeks. Strengthening family tax benefit residence requirements will better ensure family assistance payments are targeted to those families who have a stronger residence connection to Australia. Isn't it amazing that we should have such a concern that our tax dollar will be spent in Australia? I think that is a wonderful thing and it is a great goal that we should have as a government to ensure that the tax dollar is being spent inside Australia. Importantly, this change will not affect individuals who are members of the Australian Defence Force or Australian Federal Police deployed overseas—thank goodness we have that common sense. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services will retain discretion to increase the six-week time frame up to three years. Family tax benefit recipients who stay overseas for more than six weeks will have their payment stopped. If an individual stops being eligible for FTB under the amended portability rules and returns to Australia within 13 weeks of the end of their portability period, then FTB will be restarted where appropriate without a new claim.
This is where, as members of parliament, we sit in our electorate offices and people come to us, trying to work their way through the social security system. It is so convoluted. The poor staff sitting over at Centrelink have to try and work these things out. Surely, we can just get down to something that is basically simple.
This measure will align the portability rules for FTB part A with those of FTB part B and most income support payments. It is expected to save Australian taxpayers over $40 million over the forward estimates. That is $10 million a year—all this work to save $10 million a year. When we are trying to bring down the budget deficit from $40 billion, we are bringing in this thing for $40 million over a four-year period. All this work; all this convolution; all this, 'The party of the first part shall now be called the party of the first part'—it should drive everyone in this place crazy.
It ensures our family assistance payment system meets its objective of helping families to raise their children in Australia, whilst noting that overseas business may arise from time to time. The government will also cease the payment of the large family supplement—this is a new one—from 1 July 2016. The supplement is a component of family tax benefit part A, another thing we have to try to fix up, and is currently paid at a rate of $324.85 per year, or $12.46 per fortnight, for the fourth and each subsequent FTB child in the family.
The estimated number of families that will be affected by cessation of the large family supplement in 2015-16 is 383,000. Evidence from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling in 2002, 2007 and 2013 consistently found that each additional child in a family costs less than a first child. In 2010, the Henry tax review—and I could go on with this, but can I tell you that I believe the minister is trying to do his utmost here. I believe the minister has really got a big job in front of him. When you consider what our social security bill is—how much we spend on social security—it just beggars belief that we are trying to save $40 million and it beggars belief that we have to work so hard to get $40 million worth of savings across four years in a budget of over $160 billion.
The problem we have is that we have come to this thing where we have complicated the lives of Australians. We have put in all these things just to give money away. For the life of me, I just do not understand why we don't just line up everyone and give them cash. Surely we are better than this. Have we become a society of people just on the make? Is it always what we can get out of something that drives us? Surely, at some stage in our lives, it should be about what we deserve?
This is the whole thing about families and what the government can do. In my city of Townsville we are seeing society break down completely in parts of our community. Where we used to see youth crime as that thing that 15-18 year olds would do—a bit of break and enter or a bit of car theft and that sort of thing; not that I am trying to diminish the responsibility or the tragedy around that—we are now seeing nine- to 11-year-olds stealing cars and participating in youth crime and becoming part of the system. We see police turn up to pick up the 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds and take them off. They see the other three or four children there and their cousins there, and we are not allowed to say anything. We can come up with a system that is so convoluted in handing money out all over the place but we cannot get to the families where there are real problems. This is the problem we have as a society, I think. We have to ask: what is important? What is important is trying to keep the family together and make it the responsibility of the family to keep themselves together.
What on earth is a nine-year-old doing out and about town stealing cars at one o'clock in the morning? I do not care what colour the skin is; the fact that they are out of the place at one o'clock in the morning completely beggars belief. What we have to do is try and instil this thing where people are responsible for themselves. I think this whole social security stuff—the minister is at the table there and I know he has a massive job to do but we have to try and unscramble the egg here. At some stage personal responsibility must play a part in this. At some stage we must be accepting responsibility that our children are out; whether they can afford the best pair of Nike boots or not to go to football should be a matter of what is in our wallet not what is in Centrelink.
My son plays soccer and he wanted to get that brand new pair of Neymar boots with the soft tops all the way to the top—290 bucks! Two hundred and ninety dollars for a pair of football boots for a boy whose feet are growing exponentially every month! But there are kids out there who have these shoes, and it should be their right, but we are complicating our lives here. If we do not get to the stage where we can have the conversation around this—that we are spending $160-billion-plus every year on handing money out the window back to taxpayers, back to people who do not pay tax, back to people who have never participated in raising taxes, back to people who have hidden their money, back to people who have got so convoluted in this that we want to make sure that we can do these things.
So, as a member of the government, I back this thing; anything that saves us anything along the way is fantastic. But we have to participate in reform in this place at some stage. At some stage we have to stand up here and be part of a government or part of a parliament that is going to sit there and be responsible for what we are doing. We have become the society that no longer sees the big picture; all we see is what is coming into our accounts. We must make sure and we have to be better than this.
So I stand here and I back these bills. But, if we are not up for reform here, we should all have a really good look at ourselves and what we are doing in this place. If we are not prepared to make the hard decisions here and if we are prepared to trumpet ourselves and pat ourselves on the back for $40 million worth of savings over four years when we are spending $160 billion, we have a long way to go—a long way to go as a parliament, a long way to go as a government and an even further way to go if we think this matters to families. I thank the House.
It is my duty now to provide some summing up to the contributions in the second reading debate that have been offered by members opposite and by members on this side of the House. As was noted by the last speaker, these are very modest savings measures in the context of the difficult problems that we face. I understand that they are modest savings measures that will be supported by the opposition and I do thank them for that support, although I note that this is one of the very few times in which support for the government's savings measures has been offered. Of course we will accept that support and thank members opposite for it.
As was noted by the previous speaker, the combined savings that are represented by the two measures in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015 are, in context, modest. They achieve combined savings of around $219.4 million over the forward estimates. Of course that is not an insubstantial amount of money, but it is in the context in which it sits that we might describe those savings as modest. To place those savings in context and to place the agreement from members opposite to these two measures in context, we have a situation, as has been noted by many speakers on this side of the House, where in excess of one-third of the Commonwealth budget is represented in the social services portfolio. It represents line items of expenditure that are growing faster than any other line items of expenditure in the entire Commonwealth budget, in a situation where we inherited $190-odd billion worth of cumulative deficits and projected deficits. As Mr Keating has recently said, there is a necessity to restrain growth in expenditure; otherwise, the nation will simply not be able to return to surplus. A failure to restrain expenditure growth in the largest single part of the Commonwealth budget—and, in an unhappy coincidence, the part of the Commonwealth budget which is growing the fastest—means that there is no ability to return to surplus.
Those $219.4 million sit in the context of other savings that have been either proposed by the government and which members opposite are now blocking, or that have been passed but which members opposite say we must restore from banked savings which have not yet been introduced but which members opposite say they will not support, and indeed savings that have been introduced since the 2015-16 budget that members opposite have said they would not support.
And those totals are very large. The savings and revenue measures that have been proposed by the government that are presently being blocked by members opposite total $5.24 billion. Spending decisions that we have made—decisions to restrain expenditure growth that we have made and that have achieved parliamentary passage, which members opposite say they would restore from banked savings, total $30.26 billion. The 2015-16 budget savings measures that the government has announced that members opposite say they will not support total $1.1 billion. Savings since the 2015-16 budget that Labor has said it will not support total $5.57 billion. Added to that list is a $1.22 billion amount representing, astonishingly, savings and revenue measures that were proposed by members opposite when they were in government which they themselves are now blocking.
So, whilst I am thankful to members opposite for their agreement to these two measures, it is not a scenario of enormous glee for the government because, really, should there be much if any debate about these two measures? In the circumstances where it is simply not conceivable that you can return to surplus unless you restrain expenditure growth in the social services portfolio, should there really be any argument about those two measures at all?
Perhaps that question is answered by describing the two measures. The first is with respect to family tax benefit and a range of other additional payments that rely on FTB eligibility for a period of up to six weeks when outside Australia. So the present situation is that family tax benefit part A recipients who are overseas are able to receive their usual rate of payments for six weeks, and then the base rate for a further 50 weeks. So, in effect, a family can leave Australia and receive payments at the usual rate—and then down to a base rate, but payments nonetheless—for a period of 56 weeks whilst outside Australia. The base rate is a not insubstantial amount of money and, obviously, cumulatively, this is where the savings of $42.1 million occur over the forward estimates.
The measure itself can be seen not merely as fair in the context but, I think, as fair in absolute terms—particularly, not just in the context of the budget scenario that we face and the difficult path back to surplus, but also in terms of looking at the portability rules that apply to other payments inside the welfare system. Indeed, this move will align the portability rules for family tax benefit part A with those for family tax benefit part B and, indeed, most other income support payments. So it is consistent with an essential principle: that the primary purpose for family assistance payments is to assist Australian families with the cost of raising children in Australia. Strengthening the family tax benefit residence requirements will better ensure family assistance payments can be targeted to those families who have the strongest residence connection to Australia.
At the same time, the government acknowledges that of course families have business to attend to from time to time overseas. That may involve going on holidays; it may involve visiting family members. But the question here is: what is the appropriate amount of time for which that visiting of a family member can be done or that holiday can be taken overseas, and benefits can still be collected through the family tax benefits system? What we say in this bill is that recipients who stay overseas for more than six weeks will have their payment stopped. Family tax benefit recipients who return to Australia within 13 weeks of their payment being stopped may have their payment restored without the need for a new claim. However, of course, family tax benefit recipients will not be back-paid for any period of overseas travel in excess of the six-week portability period.
Importantly, this change does not affect individuals who are members of the Australian Defence Force or Australian Federal Police deployed overseas. It will not affect individuals who are assisted by the Medical Treatment Overseas Program or those unable to return to Australia for a specified reason, such as a serious accident or a natural disaster. Indeed, the secretary of the Department of Social Services will retain discretion to increase the six-week time frame for up to three years.
If we are considering these measures on the basis of fairness and equity—which should be, reasonably, at the heart of our social security system—we are indeed providing for that six-week time frame to be increased at the discretion of the secretary-general, in extremely unusual cases. But the measure itself is completely justifiable. The notion that we are paying the base rate of family tax benefit part A for 50 weeks for a family who is overseas is not merely a very strange policy situation; it is in the context of the fact that we are in deficit—that, in effect, that extra expenditure is being paid for out of borrowings. It is an extraordinary situation in any context, let alone the context of the fact that we are trying to find reasonable and rational savings to return ourselves to surplus.
I should also note, before closing on the issue of family tax benefit A, that there will be flow-on effects to other payments that rely on the family tax benefit eligibility criteria. They include the childcare benefit, the childcare rebate, the double orphan pension, the schoolkids bonus, and the single income family supplement if the family is outside the portability period.
The other measure that is contained in this bill, with respect to savings, is to remove the large family supplement from 1 July 2016. This is a larger amount of savings and will help the government achieve savings of $177.3 million over the forward estimates. The large family supplement is a very small component of the overall family tax benefit part A structure. It is currently around $12.46 per fortnight, or, cumulatively, $324.85 per year. It is applied to the fourth and each subsequent family tax benefit child in a family. So that is $12.46 per fortnight for the fourth child, the fifth child, the sixth child and so forth.
The notional reason why that amount of money has been paid in the past is that larger families cost more and, because of the fact that the family tax benefit is meant to relate and respond to the cost of raising each child, there was a rationale for a weighting. All of the best evidence now suggests that is not correct. The evidence from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling in 2002, 2007 and 2013 consistently found that each additional child in a family costs less than the first child. Indeed, the most recent research found that, on average, a second child costs 83 per cent of the cost of the first child and the third child costs 69 per cent of the cost of the first child.
Can they challenge that—
It may seem emotionally more difficult, but the fact is that it is economically cheaper, and of course that is simply because of the ability to spread fixed costs among more children—just a classic economic example of economies of scale. That highlights the appropriateness the government believes of the change to the family tax benefit part A payment structure. It is interesting to note that we have acted on the economic evidence and that evidence has been available through modelling in 2002, 2007 and 2013. It is not a simple decision, of course, because it means a reduction in absolute payments to families who have a fourth, fifth and sixth child, but, nevertheless, it is in a context where, again, in deficit with debt, we are trying very hard in difficult circumstances to gain savings to deliver us back to surplus. Is it worth borrowing that money to spend in this fashion? I think the answer to that question would have to be that it is not. There is support for this move even the Henry tax review commissioned by members opposite in 2010, which recommend that the large family supplement be abolished because the policy rationale behind the payment was not strong. The National Commission of Audit reiterated this position in 2004 by stating that the basic rates of family tax benefit part A payment were sufficient for the costs of raising children.
I will pause there for a moment. It raises this question: with 50 different supplements, add-ons and extra payments that were inherited in the welfare system by this government, and with 20 broader categories of welfare, each of those payments have to be examined to see whether they are fit for purpose, and, indeed, there has to be some interrogation of the purpose for which they were originally devised and whether that purpose, if it were ever economically true, still exists. It would have to be said that the arguments with respect to the large family supplement are that the reasons for which it was devised, if they were ever true, are no longer true and therefore it is reasonable to end that supplement. Of course, that is part of the necessary task of budget repair. This is part of an evidence based approach that the government makes best efforts to take in achieving policy outcomes in this area.
I must also note that, importantly, this change is in line with the recommendations of the McClure review and, without labouring that point, as I have just noted, the McClure review was very persuasive in arguing that there are simply too many different individualised payments inside the social welfare system in Australia. The government has made its best efforts to start consolidating the list of 55 different payments, supplements, add-ons and associated benefits that exist in the welfare system.
The government of course acknowledges the costs incurred in raising children, and, whilst we recognise the best economic evidence to suggest that those costs decrease with additional children, the fact is that most families affected by this change continue to receive the per-child family tax benefit part A payments, and that continues to help cover the costs associated with raising children. Family tax benefit part A is currently paid at the maximum rate of $179.76 per fortnight for each family tax benefit child up to 12 years of age and $233.94 for each child aged 13 and over until the end of the calendar year in which the child turns 19 and is in secondary school. The base rate of family tax benefit part A is $57.68 per fortnight, and of course that base rate is the rate that we are ending payment of after six weeks whilst a family is overseas. Families who would no longer receive family tax benefit part A as result of these changes would only have been entitled to a very small amount of payment—indeed, less than the value of the large family supplement.
These two budget measures, along with the reform package introduced recently by the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill, will improve the sustainability of family payments while providing continued support to those most in need of assistance. It should be noted, of course—and it was a point of note by many speakers on this side of the House—that in the 2015-16 budget, notwithstanding the best efforts in as fair a way as possible to rationalise and slow down the growth in expenditure in the family tax benefits system, the government will still be providing around $19 billion in family tax benefit payments. That is in the 2015-16 budget. That is the second biggest item of expenditure within the social services portfolio and the fourth biggest in the Commonwealth budget. This very modest saving of around $177.3 million is a reasonable and prudent measure to ensure that the family tax benefit system remains affordable and the government can continue to assist families in raising their children on a sustainable basis and in the context of sustainable budgets and a return back to surplus.
In summary, we would argue the measures are sensible and practical, they are aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the family tax benefit system and they are designed to guarantee that payments are targeted to those most in need and on the basis of comparative need. Of course, sustainability and fairness are at the heart of these reforms. I commend these measures to allow us to support those most in need in the future. I do thank the assistance, albeit modest assistance, that has been offered by members opposite. (Time expired)
The question is that this bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after 8 pm.
Debate adjourned.
Tonight I speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015. It is another year and another bill that seeks to rip thousands of dollars from the pockets of Australian families. It is clear that it is not just the Liberal Party; it is also the National Party. The National Party represent some of the lowest income electorates in this country and yet they are prepared to take thousands of dollars out of the pockets of those on the lowest incomes. It is going to come out of the pockets of poor families. That is where it is going to come from. It is going to come out of the pockets of poor families if the National Party get their way. That is exactly where it is going to come from.
It is like an annual tradition for the Liberal Party and the National Party. Every single year they come around and put forward legislation to cut family payments to millions of Australian families. The characters might change from year to year, a conversation about an increase to the GST might come or go, but the same cuts to families remain. It all began in the 2014 budget when the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, proposed to cut $8.5 billion out of the pockets of families. These cuts of $8.5 billion would have made it so much harder for families to receive the support that they needed to help with the cost of raising children. These cuts would have left a single-income family on $65,000 a year around $6,000 each year worse off. That would have applied right through all of the National Party seats as well as Liberal Party seats. $6,000 each year is how much worse off Australian families would have been if this Liberal-National Party government had been successful in getting its first round of cuts to family payments through the parliament. I am very pleased to say that Labor fought those cuts and won.
Then last year in what the Liberals and the Nationals called a compromise they again tried to cut support to families. This time they were cuts of $4.8 billion. Again, Labor fought for families. Labor fought for families that faced cuts of around $5,000 a year. We fought against the cuts to the family tax benefit supplement and cuts to family tax benefit part B. We are doing so again tonight, because this bill contains the same cuts to family tax benefit supplements, both A and B, and the same cuts to family tax benefit part B for single parents. Today Labor is saying to this Prime Minister: enough is enough. These cuts to family payments completely fail the fairness test. They fail the fairness test that the Prime Minister himself set for changes to family payments. Last year the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, said in reference to these changes:
Fairer is what it is all about. Fairness has got to be the key priority.
Well, Prime Minister, these changes to family payments will make families up to $5,000 a year worse off. How could that be fair?
The Prime Minister cannot just talk about fairness. He cannot just say one thing and then do the exact opposite. Yet that is exactly what is happening here. It is also happening on climate change, marriage equality and the republic. This Prime Minister says one thing and then does another. He says he believes in fairness but then he makes massive cuts to low- and middle-income families.
I will just give the parliament an example. A single-parent family with two teenage children stands to lose around $4,700 a year or $97 a week when the impact of these cuts to family payments and the abolition of the schoolkids bonus are combined. So a single parent with two teenagers will those $1,806 in family tax benefit A and B end-of-year supplements, $1,712 as a result of the abolition of the schoolkids bonus and $1,785 in family tax benefit part B, as the base payment is set to be reduced to $1,000 a year. These cuts will apply each and every year to the poorest families in this country. These families would only gain around $525 from a fortnightly increase to family tax benefit part A. But when you add it altogether it would mean that a family like this—a single parent with two teenagers—would end up a total of $4,700 a year worse off. How on earth could that be fair?
Just last week we saw new projections from the Parliamentary Budget Office that showed that Mr Turnbull's cuts to family payments will cost families $16 billion over the next 10 years. That is how much each and every member of the Liberal and National parties are going to take out of the pockets of the poorest families in this country when they vote for this legislation in a few hours time. $16 billion will come out of the pockets of low- and middle-income families when each of these Liberal and National Party members vote for it. That is how much this Turnbull government wants to rip from the pockets of Australian families—$16 billion over the next decade.
What this proves is that it does not really matter who leads the Liberal Party or the National Party. It does not matter who the Treasurer is. It does not matter who the social services minister is. All this government want to do is dip into the pockets of Australian families and take money out of them. They are not actually interested in how these families manage; they just want to take these huge amounts of money off them.
I want to go through the detail of what is in this legislation and exactly how exactly how families will be worse off as a result of these proposed cuts. There will be a reduction in family tax benefit part B for single parent families when their youngest child turns 13. There will be around 136,000 single parents with children aged over 13 who will have their family tax benefit part B reduced to $1,000 in 2016—a cut of around $1,700 a year. Single parents with children over the age of 16 will have their family tax benefit cut entirely, and that means they will lose $3,100. I have to say that my great fear with that measure is that if it gets through the parliament—and I sincerely hope that it will not—it will be a very big disincentive for young people to stay in school. It will make life that much harder for the families of young people who do decide that they will try to stay in school.
There will also be a rapid phase-out of family tax benefit A and B end-of-year supplements over two years. The family tax benefit A supplement will be reduced to $602.25 from 1 July 2016, then to $302.95 from 1 July 2017 and abolished entirely from 1 July 2018. Everyone should know that this will apply to 1.5 million Australian families—that is, 1½ million families who will entirely lose their family tax benefit part A supplement. That is a cut of $725 a year for every single child in those families. Around 500,000 of those families are on family incomes of less than $50,000 a year. There families are on very low incomes, and this government is going to take hundreds and hundreds of dollars out of their pockets.
The impact of these cuts, of course, will be compounded by cuts to family tax benefit part B. There are 1.3 million families who will lose their family tax benefit part B supplement—that is a cut of $354 a year per family. Single-parent families will lose both of the supplements—both family tax benefit A and B. In total, more than 1.6 million families will be left worse off because of these cuts. That is what the Liberal members and the National Party members are going to be voting for tonight. There will be thousands of these families in the electorate of each and every member who will vote in favour of these cuts tonight. Shame on each and every one of you. Three million children are set to lose the support that their parents rely on. The family tax benefit part B supplement will be reduced to $302.95 from 1 July 2016. It will go to $153.30 from 1 July 2017, and it will be abolished entirely from 1 July 2018. So these cuts are very, very harsh indeed. They are very harsh cuts that will have a very real impact on the living standards of families across Australia. In fact, I believe that these cuts are actually harsher than those contained in the 2014 budget.
Also contained in this bill is a very small increase of $10 a fortnight in the standard child rate of family tax benefit part A. However—and only this government could figure this out—around 300,000 families will not even receive this increase but will still be affected by the Prime Minister's cuts. The bill also sees the return of the Baby Bonus in the form of a new rate of family tax benefit part B that will be introduced for families with children aged under one. This particular measure is quite remarkable for a number of reasons. First of all, it completely flies in the face of the government's rhetoric about budget repair. Second, it is contrary to the government's rhetoric about simplifying the welfare system. We have just heard the Minister for Social Services go on and on about how important it is to simplify the welfare system, and here they are creating a new payment in this bill! Of course, it is just another piece of rhetoric by them gone wrong. It does make you wonder why the measure exists at all. The reason, of course, was that it was part of the deal that the current Prime Minister did with the Nationals after he rolled the previous Prime Minister.
This Prime Minister yesterday talked about good policymaking taking precedence over political decisions. If the Prime Minister were true to his word, then he would take this measure out of this bill immediately. I cannot recall a measure that is so blatantly about the Prime Minister shoring up support in the coalition party room. This really takes the cake!
I am pleased to say that Labor have been able to get some concessions out of the government. We were able to get some exemptions for around 4,000 grandparent carers from the cuts to family tax benefit part B that would apply when their youngest child turns 13. But we should not forget the appalling way in which this Liberal National Party government was prepared to treat grandparent carers, and, of course, all the Liberal and National Party members over there voted for it. The Minister for Social Services stood up in this place in question time and told grandparent carers to go out and get a job. It was so offensive and so out of touch. Then, of course, we saw him give a train wreck interview. He was asked whether a grandparent carer with a 15-year-old in their care would be $2,500 a year worse off, and he said:
Errr, well, that depends on their capacity to access childcare and re-enter the workforce.
A grandparent carer with a 15-year-old child and the minister says that whether or not they are going to be worse off depends on their capacity to access child care and re-enter the workforce. Honestly, I don't know if the minister was doing an impersonation of the previous Minister for Social Services, the member for Menzies, or he really is that out of touch—it is hard to tell—because anyone who has actually met a grandparent carer would know how hard it is and how much that responsibility weighs on their shoulders.
Late last year, just before Christmas, I had the opportunity to meet with some grandparent carers at the Mirabel Foundation in the electorate of the member for Melbourne Ports. I know that the member for Melbourne Ports is a big supporter of everyone at Mirabel. The member for Melbourne Ports was instrumental in having Mirabel's funding restored after it was cut in the 2014 budget by this Liberal-National Party government. Mirabel does amazing work, and I want to thank Jane Rowe and Elizabeth McCrea and the whole team for the work they do. It was a very, very emotional visit. Some of the stories that this group of grandparent carers shared with me were very sad—stories of terrible tragedy. But I also heard stories of extraordinary love and dedication—love and dedication to their grandchildren. Grandparent carers do an amazing job.
One grandparent carer I met at Mirabel was Lorri, and I want to spend some time talking about Lorri's story. She has been caring for her 13-year-old granddaughter since 2002. Her granddaughter was only two months old when Lorri was asked to care for her. Lorri's own daughter had a history of mental health illness and chronic drug use, and she died in 2007. The money that Lorri had previously saved and invested to ensure she would be independent in her retirement had to be used to buy a car and to cover the ongoing costs of caring for her granddaughter. She now rents a small two-bedroom private rental unit for herself and her granddaughter. Her granddaughter's school fees for 2016 will be $1,100 which will need to be gradually paid off through the year. Up until now the schoolkids bonus has helped with the ever-increasing cost of school. But, of course, this government has decided to scrap the schoolkids bonus from the middle of this year—and that too will affect Lorri and her granddaughter greatly. If the government's cuts to family payments had gone through the parliament, Lorri told me that she would have 'gone under'. That is how serious these cuts are. This is a real person. She is not a number in the budget papers. Lorri is a real person.
The grandparent carers that I met at Mirabel really do not expect that much from any government; most just want a little bit of help that might make their special responsibility in life that much easier. Instead, what this Liberal-National government is trying to do is make their life so much harder. It was Labor that had to shame this government into dropping their cuts to grandparent carers. They did not do it out of the goodness of their heart. We had to shame them into it. I want to say to all those grandparent carers out there that Labor will continue to fight for you in the face of this Liberal-National Party government's cuts. As a result of the legislation that is before us tonight, grandparent carers will still lose all of their family tax benefit end-of-year supplements. That is what this legislation will do to grandparent carers. So I would say to everybody who is going to vote on this legislation: think about these extraordinary people before you vote tonight.
As I said earlier, we should not forget that Mr Turnbull said in an interview just last October that his approach to family payment changes would be all about fairness. Well, Mr Turnbull, in this legislation, single-parent families will be around $5,000 a year worse off. This is Prime Minister Turnbull's version of fairness: single parents will be around $5,000 a year worse off. This is a Prime Minister who continually says one thing and does another. He may say that he is not convinced about an increase to the GST right now, but how could you trust him? How could you trust this Prime Minister or this Liberal-National government to keep their word about anything, after the record we have seen in the last two and a half years? How could you trust this Prime Minister when he talks about fairness and he wants to take $5,000 out of the budgets of low- and middle-income families? So Labor will again oppose these cuts. We will oppose this bill today. We will oppose it because we do believe in fairness, and we are not just saying it like the Prime Minister does. We will put people first. We will put families first. And that is why we are opposing this bill with every ounce of our passion today.
The member for Jagajaga has just spoken for close to 20 minutes in this debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015. In those 20 minutes this nation has had to borrow another $1.4 million. And we will borrow another $1.4 million in the next 20 minutes, and so on and so on, every hour of the day, every day of the week, every week of the year for the next two years as we try to bring this budget under control. What this means is that we are continuing to add to the debt burden which we will hand on to our children and our grandchildren.
It is all very well for the member for Jagajaga to come in here, whinge and complain about the difficult job that we in the coalition have to do in trying to repair this budget, but, mind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was a problem that was created by the member for Jagajaga when she sat on the Treasury benches—when she was sitting in that Labor cabinet which ticked off all that reckless and wasteful expenditure, which turned the $20 billion of budget surplus they inherited into record deficit. It put this nation into so much red ink, for which we now have to find $13 billion every year—not to pay for family tax benefits or to give to kids with disabilities or to health care or to public transport or to education. That $13 billion, which could otherwise have gone to those very needy causes, simply has to go to pay the interest on the debt that they created. They are the ones who come in here after causing all the mess and causing the reasons this budget repair is needed to whinge and complain about fairness.
The member for Jagajaga talked about the fairness test. There is nothing more unfair than running deficit budget after deficit budget. Even with all the hard work that this coalition government is currently doing and all the unpopular steps we are forced to take to wind that budget deficit back, we will be looking at a decade of budget deficit. If you are looking for something that is unfair, that is unfair. It means that the children we are talking about—the beneficiaries of the family tax benefit—will have to pay higher taxes and they will have fewer government services in the future simply because over the last decade we have been spending too much money.
Ms Hall interjecting—
I hear the member for Shortland interjecting. She is a champion at coming in here and complaining about some of the tough measures that we have made. I remember the member for Shortland was there voting every time over the last six years when Labor was on its reckless spending spree, racking up the debt. I hope that, when the member for Shortland goes out doorknocking, she apologises to her electors for creating that debt through all that wasteful expenditure which she never spoke up against. I hope you go and apologise and explain to your constituents that every single year now $13 billion has to be found just to pay the interest on the debt that you are responsible for. I hope you apologise to them.
I also hope that members of the Labor Party would at least listen to their former leader, Paul Keating, for over the last couple of days—and it is not often, I must admit, that I would agree with the words of Paul Keating but this time I am in lockstep with him—he said:
…commodity prices have dropped, budget revenues are falling. When commonwealth revenue has been so affected the penny ought to drop that we should be cutting spending.
He is right: the penny ought to drop but, unfortunately, it has not on the other side of the chamber. They think they can continue to borrow and spend and tax and borrow some more and spend some more. They simply do not understand the damage that they are doing to the future prospects of this country.
None of us likes to make these hard decisions. All of us would like to continue to spend and hand out benefits left, right and centre to all our constituents, but the government does not have any money. The only way we can get that money is to increase taxes and to continue to borrow. That is the worst possible thing we can do.
The other thing we need to make a note of is that the money we are borrowing to finance government spending is mainly coming from overseas. It means those interest payments we make actually have to go out of the country. One concern I hear a great deal about from my constituents is that foreign companies are coming in and buying up parts of Australia. They say, 'We are getting further and further behind. There more and more foreigners owning parts of Australia.' When we continue to borrow money, we are getting ourselves further and further into debt with foreigners, and more and more foreign entities are owning a bigger part of Australia. That is because we are borrowing from them to pay our ongoing expenses.
There should be one word that we have for all pieces of legislation in this place—sustainability. We cannot continue to spend unsustainably. We like to talk and teach about it in the schools we go to. We hear sustainability as one of the buzzwords. I would like them to learn about economic sustainability; that is what we need to focus on. We cannot continue in the way we are going because we should—even after this last decade of deficits—look at what is down the track for us. Look at how our age profile is changing; look at the ratio of people of traditional working age between 16 and 64 to people aged over 65. Go back to 1974-75, when we had 7.3 people of working age to every person over 65; now we are down to 4.5 people. For every person over the age of 65, we have their expenditures and their pensions being sustained by those 4.5 people of working age.
If we take the projections forward to the year 2050, we are looking at having only 2.7 people of working age for every person aged over 65. If we cannot balance the budget on the current demographics that we have, what hope do future generations have when we will have such a ratio of people of working age to people aged over 65? This is the obligation that we have, and we need to fix it now. We cannot continue with this reckless spending.
The member for Jagajaga talked about how this would affect single parents. There is some good news in this for single parents. I will give you the example of a single mother with one child who is three years old. The child attends long day care four days per week while her mother is at work. Assuming the mother's income in 2018-19—that is, three years down the track—is $68,000, under the new childcare subsidy she would be $2,845 better off after the new family tax benefit changes have been taken into account. These horrendous cuts that the member for Jagajaga is trying to frighten constituents with are simply not true.
But we need to make some tough decisions. We as a nation simply cannot continue to spend and tax and borrow in the way that we have been. Some hard decisions need to be made. I would hope that members of the opposition, rather than whingeing and whining and complaining, tell the truth to their constituents, admit the problems that we have and work with the coalition to try and bring our budget back to balance. With that, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
In accordance with standing order 133(b), I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved by the Minister for Social Services on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I am very keen to give this speech on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015. I jumped to my feet as soon as I could. Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for calling me. I did not mind waiting a couple of minutes.
It was interesting to sit in here when the member for Hughes was making his contribution to the debate. I felt as if I existed in an alternate universe to him. He talked about the damage that is being done to the future and the only way that you can stop this damage is by harshly attacking people who are the most vulnerable within our society. He gave the speech of a zealot. He failed to recognise in his contribution to the debate that by causing hardship and damage to families he is actually damaging the future prospects of this country. For us to have a secure future we are relying on families being able to afford to bring up their children, ensure they have an education and provide for them. It is those families and children that are the key to the success of our country in the future. Australia relies on them.
I could not help but make a comparison to the former member for Hughes, Danna Vale. I saw her a couple of weeks ago and it was very pleasant to catch up with her. She is a very different type of person. She understands the value of families and the value of communities. Unfortunately, the current member for Hughes just does not get it. Because he does not get it he cannot understand how important it is to support families. He talked about demographics and blamed Labor for the problems that he sees exist now. He did not talk about the fact that the budget deficit has tripled since this government has been in power. He talked about the challenge of cutting spending and said that the only solution is to cut spending—and for him cutting spending means attacking the most vulnerable in our society.
At no time did he highlight the fact that there is a need to crack down on multinational companies. At no time did he talk about the need to close the superannuation loopholes. Rather he had one focus to bring the budget back into balance and that was to attack the most vulnerable people in our country and to attack families, who are taking care of the future generation of Australians.
I spoke earlier today on another piece of social security legislation. That legislation was taking away conditions of pensioners. It looked at pensioners who were going overseas and it reduced their pension. Tonight we are looking at the other end of the spectrum, and that is families. Once again we are looking at taking away from families.
I will go through this legislation because there is quite a bit of detail in it. There is an increase in the standard rate of FTB A of $10 per fortnight for all families receiving more than the base rate. There is the introduction of a new rate of payment for family tax benefit B families with children under the age of one. There is a reduction of family tax benefit B for single parent families with children between the age of 13 and 16. This is a reduction at a time when young people, young students, are actually at their most expensive. It is when they need the most support. You need to ensure that they have the resources they need to learn and the resources they need to prepare themselves for work and for a career. Also there is the abolition of payments for single parent families whose youngest child is aged between 17 and 19 and in full-time secondary school. I will repeat that: single parent families whose youngest child is between 17 and 19 attending full-time secondary school will lose their family tax benefit B payment. That is so short-sighted. This government does not understand that by providing that support to families it is ensuring that those students, those families, can go on to a better, brighter future rather than have to scrape and miss out on things and not be able to get the resources they need for schooling.
What it demonstrates is that those on the other side of this House do not understand what it is like to be on a fixed low to middle income and have to provide support for children attending school. It really saddens me to think that we have members of parliament who are so out of touch with their communities that they cannot understand this simple, basic fact.
It is also, in this legislation, agreed—after much effort from the Labor Party—to maintain the payment to single parents who are, at least, 60 years of age. In other words, the Turnbull-Abbott government was going to rip the family tax benefit away from grandparents. Grandparents do it very hard, and there are many grandparents in Australia who are responsible for looking after and raising their grandchildren. It is a sad fact that this has increased enormously in recent years. I work very closely with a number of grandparent groups within the Shortland electorate and on the Central Coast. During the time that I have been associated with them this government has defunded these groups. Some of them are working voluntarily. I provide whatever support I can, to them, as do other community organisations.
Once again, this demonstrates that members of the government do not understand the basic fact that if you are 60 years of age or over and you are caring for your grandchild the impost is very great. The government does not understand the support that child needs and the support the grandparents need. It was only because of the efforts of the opposition that the government will maintain the current rate of payment. I would, particularly, like to pay credit to the member for Jagajaga. She was very tenacious in arguing in favour of grandparents.
This legislation is phasing out family tax benefit A and B end-of-year supplements over two years. Families relied on that. If there was an overpayment, that supplement was used to adjust the overpayment, and that was the rationale behind it when it was introduced. This government is, once again, getting rid of it. The family tax benefit A supplement will be reduced to $602.25 from July 2016 and $302.95 from July 2017 and will be totally abolished from 2018. The family tax B supplement will also be reduced and finally abolished in 2018.
This package will impact on families in a very draconian way. There will be 140,000 families with children under the age of one who will receive an increase of $1,000. That is, basically, bringing back the baby bonus in a different form. It is the Liberal Party's appeasement of the National Party. Whilst they are giving $1,000 a year to families with children under the age of one, they are ripping money out of families with children over the age of one. I heard the member for Jagajaga point out how some of the poorest families live in National Party electorates. National Party members should be in here arguing for all families of Australia—not just for the baby bonus to be brought back in a different format for 140 families.
There are 136,000 single parents with children aged 13 to 16 who have had their family tax benefit reduced. That reduction works out at about $1,700. Single parents with children aged 16 will suffer a cut of almost $3,100. There will be 1.2 million families who will receive an increase in family tax benefit A but 1.5 million families will lose the family tax benefit A supplement of $726 per child. In other words, they will be much worse off. On the one hand this government makes things look glossy but on the other hand it is taking. Up-front it looks like they are giving, but when you look at the details you find that what they are putting forward as a bonus is, actually, a loss.
This legislation fails the fairness test, a test that every piece of legislation should be based on. Since the draconian budget of 2014, the Abbott and then Turnbull governments have been fiddling around the edges. They really needed to go back to the drawing board and come back with a package that was fair. The latest version is still not good enough and will still create a lot of hurt for a number of families. The fact that 1.5 million families are going to lose their family tax benefit A will have a significant impact. The fact that 1.3 million families will lose their family tax benefit part B supplement will also have a significant impact.
When we look at fairness, we can say that the new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is no better than the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. People embraced him because they thought that there was going to be a kinder, fairer government, one that would actually connect to the community and listen to the issues that were concerning families. Instead, we have just got a smoother version of the former Prime Minister. His agenda is the same. His policies are the same. He is still hurting families. My message to Australians is that the only way that we can bring fairness back into Australia is to get rid of the Liberal government. A Liberal-National Party government—I will not leave the National Party out of this—be it a Turnbull led government or an Abbott led government, is still the same.
When it comes to fairness, they just do not understand. On one hand, as I mentioned earlier, they are refusing to make multinationals pay their fair share of tax. They are refusing to curb the generous tax concessions for wealthy superannuants. Instead of taking money and looking at adjusting the budget in those areas, what this government is doing is targeting ordinary Australians on low and middle incomes. Instead of taking money from those people who are seeking to evade taxation, they are taking it out of the pockets of struggling Australian families. With one piece of legislation they are attacking pensioners. In this legislation we have before us they are attacking families. This government stands condemned for its vendetta against Australian people.
I stand to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015. I often hear talk about sustainability, especially from the other side of politics—and I think it is relevant too. They will talk about sustainability in relation to environmental and ecological measures, which are very important. We need to maintain sustainability in all things, the environment being one of those, and it is a very important facet of our community and our life.
Unfortunately, not as commonly do I hear the other side talk about sustainability when it comes to financial measures. Often we will hear them saying that we are just custodians of our land and our water for our children and our grandchildren—and so we are. But we are also custodians in regard to finance for our children and our grandchildren. We are borrowing from our children and our grandchildren right now, and governments need to be very prudent in the management of financial resources as well as of other resources.
This legislation, in particular, is about making sure that the government does provide for the vulnerable in our community. We all know that, for many reasons, some people may be doing it tough or may have reached tough times, and a government and a society is always judged by how it looks after the vulnerable. We need to continue to look after people who need help in our community, and this bill is about two things: targeting those who are most vulnerable and making sure that they are still helped, and ensuring that the system that we have is sustainable so that the help and the things that we are doing for those who are vulnerable in our community will be funded into the future.
There are three basic measures in this bill. One is that the family tax benefit part A fortnightly rates will be increased by around $10 for each child aged up to 19 in the family. It will also amend the rules and introduce a new rate structure for the family tax benefit part B, and there will be a phasing out of the family tax benefit part A and part B supplements. The family payments reform package brings forward a set of measures which aim to achieve long-term sustainability of the family payments system—as I mentioned earlier, one of the key targets of this—while continuing to deliver help to families who need it the most, now and into the future. The family payment reform package will support the important task of budget repair and help to pay for the government's $3 billion Jobs for Families childcare package, because, as we know, we have a budget that does need to be sustainable in the future and, at the moment, changes need to be made to make sure that it is.
The government is also proposing to increase the FTB part A fortnightly rates from 1 July 2018 and increase the fortnightly rates of the youth allowance and the disability support pension to align with the new FTB part A fortnightly rates. Around 1.2 million families, including those on income support, will receive the fortnightly increase which will assist them with day-to-day living expenses. They are the most vulnerable.
The FTB part B payment structures will also be reformed to provide more support to families when their children are born and better encourage workforce participation when their youngest child is older and their ability to participate in the workforce is enhanced. From 1 July 2016 the standard rate of the family tax benefit part B will be increased by $1,000 per year for families with a youngest child aged under one. This measure will help around 142,000 of the more vulnerable families as well. The current standard rates will be maintained for families with a youngest child aged between one and 13. Standard rates will also be maintained for single parents who are at least 60 years of age and for grandparent and great-grandparent carers with a youngest child aged between 13 and 18. A reduced standard rate of $1,000 will apply to single-parent families where the parent is under 60 and the youngest child is aged between 13 and 16.
We acknowledge, as a government should, the important role of parents in the primary care of their children and maintain a range of programs and payments to support them. Currently, the government spends a substantial amount of money in three main areas of family support each year: around $20 billion in the family tax benefit, $6 billion in the childcare benefit and the childcare rebate and around $2 billion in paid parental leave.
The government's commitment to supporting parents in caring for their children also needs to be balanced with the responsibility to ensure that family assistance and social security payments are targeted to those who are most vulnerable and, as I said earlier, are sustainable into the future so that the programs can be maintained. The government believes these sensible changes will ensure the sustainability of family payments and that the system provides support to families who need it most, now and into the future. This is a sensible package of measures that contain the required savings from family payments to offset the additional investment in the childcare package, which will help families and encourage workforce participation.
As I said at the start, the role of government is to look after those who are most vulnerable, and this set of measures targets increased assistance to those families who we believe to be the most vulnerable, and it also addresses the sustainability of all these programs. The savings in the package are designed to do that. The easy thing in government is to spend money. Every politician would like to hand out as much money as they can to people in a range of circumstances, but we need to do it with prudence, in a way that is sustainable and in a way that is targeted. As I said earlier, it is proper that we talk about sustainability as far as the environment goes—it is proper that we talk about sustainability when it comes to ecology and borrowing resources from our children. It is all true, but the other thing that we need to always recognise is that we are going to pass the functioning of our economy to our children and our grandchildren, and it is very important that we do not borrow heavily from them as well.
I commend this bill to the House.
Everybody in this country understands that we have a fiscal problem—that the expenditure of the government is still well in excess of the revenue generated. Everybody understands that, it seems, except for the Labor Party. They understand that, despite all the work that we have done, our expenditure is still about 10 per cent higher than the revenue we earn. They understand that and they know it is not a sustainable position. The Australian public know that you cannot continue to have long-term budget deficits forever and a day and that, ultimately, if you continue down that path you will follow the path some European countries such as Greece have gone down. Everybody knows that, it seems, apart from the Labor Party.
This is the context of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015, because it presents to us another set of reasonable savings measures that we are putting forward. In some respects, they are savings measures which are difficult. They are difficult-to-put-forward measures, which inevitably means that some of the benefits to some people will not be as great as they were receiving last year. But the bottom line here is that, if you are a responsible government, you cannot continue to spend more than you earn. It is a very common-sense proposition. If they do not believe me, perhaps the Labor Party would listen to one of their supposed greats in Paul Keating. Paul Keating himself said that we have to get control of the expenditure side of the budget—that is what he said and that is what this bill is aimed towards.
Of course, the Australian public also know that, yes, we have a fiscal problem and they know, deep in their veins, that the Labor Party created this fiscal problem and are creating obstacles to us fixing this problem today. When the Labor Party took over the government benches in 2007, the budget surplus was $20 billion, and, when they left, the budget was in deep deficit, with deficits as far as the eye could see. In their very short time in government, they had clocked up $191 billion worth of budget deficits. The five largest budget deficits in Australian political history occurred during the six-year reign of the Rudd-Gillard government. What sort of record is that? I do not know if the member for Chifley, who is sitting at the table, is proud of that record. I think something that he, maybe, is ashamed about is that Labor oversaw the five largest budget deficits in Australian political history—and that is the issue that we have to grapple with now. When they left office, they not only left enormous budget deficits as far as the eye could see; they had locked in government expenditure at 3.7 per cent per annum real growth, year on year. Of course, if your expenditure is growing at that rate and your GDP is only growing at perhaps two to three per cent, it means that, overall, you are going to have a fiscal problem. You cannot grow government more than the growth of the economy; otherwise you end up with very big fiscal problems. They were the challenges that we had to face and we continually have to face as a responsible government now, after those six dreadful years of Labor government.
I would like to refer to the Treasury secretary, who really makes these points very clearly. He did so just recently in a speech that he made at the Sydney Institute, where he went through the overall global economic challenges and some of the challenges which Australia has to face. He said, very squarely:
Why should the living standards of future generations be compromised just because we were not willing to make sacrifices to address the unsustainable growth of government expenditure?
That is what the Treasury secretary said. He put this down very squarely by saying that not only is there an economic challenge to us but, at the heart of it, there is actually a moral challenge as well.
This is a moral issue because in essence, if we rack up very large budget deficits today, we are stealing from the future and we will cause the living standards of our children to be lower. That is what is at stake. Yes, there is a deep economic challenge of running large budget deficits indefinitely, but it is also a moral challenge and it is something the Labor Party will just refuse to face up to. If they continually block our savings measures if and they continually ensure that there are budget deficits for as far as the eye can see, they are actually stealing from our children's future because they are the ones that will have to pay it back. It means that they will have a lower standard of living, as the Treasury secretary himself said, if we continue down this path. It is a moral issue as much as it is an economic issue. The correct moral course of action is to live within our means. That is the correct moral course of action, so that we are not leaving these huge budget deficits for future generations to pay for.
There are a number of ways we can think about this budgetary challenge that we have. First, you can almost put your head in the sand, as it seems the Labor Party wants to do, and just not even accept that we have a fiscal challenge. The second way is to raise taxes and just continually raise taxes to follow the ever-increasing expenditure. Some members of the Labor Party want to follow that strategy. The third strategy is actually to reduce your expenditure and at the same time grow your economy. Out of those three strategies—put your head in the sand or raise taxes to follow expenditure or get control of your expenditure—the Labor Party are firmly in option 1 or option 2. We on the other hand are in option 3. We firmly believe that in order to get control of the budget we should be restraining expenditure, and that is exactly what we have been doing.
Already, in terms of some of the budget measures we have put through, we have now reduced the real growth of government expenditure from 3.7 per cent down to below two per cent. That means that it is now below the rate of GDP growth and, if the GDP is growing faster than your expenditure growth, then over time our deficits as a percentage of GDP and our debt as a percentage of GDP will start to decline. In essence that is the core of our fiscal repair strategy: (1) get expenditure under control, (2) grow the economy more rapidly. Everybody knows the expenditure repair jobs we have already done, including in the 2014 budget. They know that hard work has already been done. It needs to continue.
I think they are also aware of the efforts we are undertaking to grow the economy more rapidly so that there is more wealth generated—so that there are more jobs generated and that contributes to the overall budget repair effort. So that is our approach: restrain expenditure and grow the economy. The Labor approach is a very different one: increase taxes to chase the tail of the ever-increasing expenditure or, if they do not follow that, to literally put their heads in the sand and not even face up to the fact that there is a budgetary problem.
It is fascinating. We have had a number of bills in recent days which have sought to restrain expenditure, and I cannot think of a single contribution on the other side where a member has said that there is a fiscal challenge and that there is a rationale for putting forward a bill that seeks to restrain expenditure further. I cannot think of a single member. I know the member for Fowler is going to be speaking after me. Perhaps he will be the first member to make such a contribution, to acknowledge that we do have a fiscal problem in this country that does need to be addressed. Perhaps he will be the first Labor member in many days to acknowledge that. I hope he is, because he is a good member. And he may well make that contribution today.
Getting to this particular bill, it concerns—like a number of bills have over the last few days—several measures which contribute to the restraining of our overall social security legislation. It is of course vital for us to have some expenditure restraint, because it represents about one-third of the budget. The social security area—and I am standing next to the Minister for Human Services who oversees many of these payments—represents about one-third of the overall budget and it has been growing by 5.7 per cent per annum. Again: that is an unsustainable growth rate, clearly. One-third of the budget growing at 5.7 per cent per annum is clearly unsustainable. You cannot continue to grow at that rate; it would eat up the entire budget. Already, eight out of 10 taxpayers have to use all of their income tax to effectively pay for those social security expenditures.
So this bill before us the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill is a further effort to restrain expenditure in the social services portfolio. They are difficult measures. They phase out some supplements. They amend the rules and introduce a new rate structure for family tax benefit part B. But they also have some additional increases as well for certain payments in family tax benefit part A. But collectively they add significant savings to the forward estimates and contribute, like many of our other budget measures, to that overall effort of repairing the fiscal deficit and getting our budget back on track.
Let me just touch on a few of the specific measures. I mentioned that we would be phasing out through this bill family tax benefit part A and part B supplements. Again these are difficult decisions we have to make but we think that phasing out those supplements is a reasonable decision in the current fiscal climate.
It is reasonable because, in essence, those supplements were introduced, in the first instance, to take account of the fact that sometimes people did not estimate their income particularly well in advance and therefore had a larger payment owing at the end of the year. That problem has been resolved largely because we are better able to connect people's weekly income to the welfare payment system, so they do not tend to have those problems at the end of the year. Therefore, we do think that this is a reasonable measure—not an easy measure, but a reasonable measure in the context. We also think that amending the rules and introducing a new rate structure for family tax benefit part B is, again, a reasonable measure. Not only do those measures go towards the fiscal repair effort but also the savings which are made from that will go into our overall childcare package as well. There is also a small expenditure measure in here, which is that the family tax benefit part A fortnightly rates will be increased by about $10 for each family tax benefit child in the family aged up to 19.
That series of measures represents several hundred million dollars worth of savings. As I said, they are tough measures for us to do. We realise that they will not always be popular with some people but, as a responsible government, we think that it is the right thing to do to find what are reasonable savings in the overall social services space and we think that these are, indeed, reasonable savings and will contribute to that budget repair effort.
Let me finish where I started, and that is: our budget fiscal problem is an economic problem. It is. People know that. But it is also a moral problem. It is a moral problem which this side of the parliament is willing to face up to. We do not want to leave enormous debt and deficit to our children of the future who will have to suffer lower living standards if we do not get on top of our fiscal challenges today.
I would also like to make a contribution to the debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015. I thank the member for Aston for his warm-up act and for acknowledging that I would be following him. I hope he is going to wait around for my contribution, because I listened intently to what he had to say and I have to say: it was very similar to what I have heard from many, many members on their side.
One thing that I am still grappling to come to terms with is that the lecture we are getting on fiscal rectitude is coming from the same people who advocated—back in the 2014 budget, where this had its genesis—as to why it was essential that we had a rolled-gold Paid Parental Leave scheme to accommodate Macquarie Street solicitors. As to all the arguments being made at that stage, we asked: why would you have a Paid Parental Leave scheme geared to people earning $150,000 a year? 'Because we can,' was the answer.
It was in that 2014 budget that they advocated all that. They went on to try to take it out of pensioners and people on family tax benefit A and family tax benefit B. I think what that showed was that it was not a structural realignment; it was a structural divide, for many of us, as to the communities that we represent.
The National Party should maybe have had a closer look at this because many of their electorates actually resemble mine. My electorate, apart from being the most multicultural electorate in the country, is the second most disadvantaged. In my electorate, the average income per household is $53,000. I would imagine that maybe many of those sitting around in Cockies Corner over here would probably have similar statistics reflected in their areas.
What this bill does is to attack those who are least able to afford it. I know there is lots of discussion going on in the media—though everyone is denying it when it is in the House—about raising by 50 per cent the goods and services tax. They are for it; they are against it—who knows where they will be on it tomorrow. We have that endless argument here about: 'We're going to do something to make sure the multinationals pay tax.' I have not read that in Rupert Murdoch's magazines either. But when it comes down to attacking those most vulnerable in our communities, they just cannot wait to get into their pockets. They cannot wait.
For all the colour and the vibrancy that we enjoy in my electorate, such as the culinary delights of having a high Asian population, I know what it is like for these families. They do it tough. Mums and dads there work pretty hard to raise a family and to get their kids a proper education. Certainly they aspire much for their children, which is a good thing. But they have to work hard to do that. And if the average family income in my electorate is $53,000, then clearly there are going to be many, many people who struggle.
One other statistic is worthwhile looking at before we get into the actual basics of this legislation. My electorate, as I say, has large pockets of disadvantage, but, when it comes to families living with disabilities—and let us just take one of them: autism—within a radius of 20 kilometres of the Liverpool CBD live 52 per cent of all families in New South Wales living with autism. I assure you that it is not the water or the air out there; it is probably the fact that land prices are a little cheaper than they are elsewhere in Sydney, and we have a lot of public housing. Regrettably, 80 per cent of families that live with autism are single-parent families. The very families that are being attacked by these cuts to family tax benefits A and B, and the ones who are most vulnerable, are the ones, quite frankly, who are doing it very, very tough. They are not after handouts; they are after support. I would have thought that is generally why we become members of this place: not to necessarily be a champion to get a vote for another election; we are supposed to be here to try to make a difference for the better for our communities. That must be the motivation, otherwise it is a lie to seek preselection, seek to be elected and everything else to come to this great place.
I accept there are going to be issues of fiscal responsibility and we will discuss plenty of that, and I am happy to discuss that, but, when it comes to issues of fairness and decency, when it comes to caring about people who are the most vulnerable, I think that buck really stops with all of us. I again make the comparison of the spirit that was around in 2014 to have paid parental leave for a Macquarie Street solicitor on $150,000 a year because it was the right thing to do, according to the government—'No means test; we will have it there'—and in the same budget trying to bring down cuts to family tax benefit part A and part B, trying to peg pension entitlements and also trying to peg the pension for disability support. This is just the wrong way of going about our responsibilities to the community. I do not care how many times they want to try to give us lectures on fiscal responsibility. Remember, these are real people that we are talking about.
In many instances the people we are talking about do not have the option of working another shift and do not have the option of working overtime. The people we are talking about are dependent on these payments. These cuts should not be designed with people saying, 'We're going to cut this, so therefore they'll go and get jobs.' Where they can, those people are already in employment. Under the legislation before us, the single mum with two kids—and she may be on disability support or does not get the schoolkids bonus—could be up to $5,000 per year worse off. I do not think it behoves any of those on the other side to take credit for that—unless they want to; then well and good. I do not think it shows any maturity for people in this place who occupy seats of privilege to bring down legislation that does exactly that.
There is the issue of family tax benefit B for single-parent families with kids between the ages of 13 and 16. The aim is to see that abolished under this legislation. It will happen in a staged form, but it is being abolished. Family tax benefit B, the supplement that is currently worth $354 a year, will be cut to $303 in 2016, $153 in 2017 and wiped out in 2018. I am sure that is something people should be very proud of on that side when they think about the people we are talking about! Combined with cutting the family tax benefit A supplement, I understand from the memorandum accompanying the bill that there is going to be a budget save worth $4.06 billion—a budget save on the back of those most vulnerable in our community. Well done, fellows, well done! The truth is that 1.3 million families will lose their family tax benefit B supplement of $354 per family—1.3 million families. With respect to family tax benefit A, the supplement will be reduced from $602 from July this year to half of that in 2017 and abolished in 2018.
I heard members opposite trying to crow about the fact that there will be an added $10 every fortnight for each child up to the age of 19. That is hardly going to offset what these families are already going through. There is no way that those opposite can say that this is kindred to that. This is just a slap in the face for people who are the most vulnerable in our community. The fact is that 1.5 million families will lose the family tax benefit A supplement, which is $726 per child. You need to realise that we are talking about 650,000 families who are on single-parent benefits and around 500,000 of those families are on the maximum rate. That means that their combined household income is less than $51,000 a year. Members sitting around navel gazing and making grand decisions about what is good for people on benefits might think about parliamentarians. I understand how hard parliamentarians work and what is required of us, but think about raising a family on $51,000 a year. Do not lecture them on fiscal responsibility and say, 'We need to examine those cuts for the future.' Think about how that is going to mature this country and make it something that we are not. The country we grew up in was a country that valued fairness and decency. It valued caring for people who are the most vulnerable.
Those opposite have really taken leave of their senses if they think that they can try to hoodwink our community by saying this is good for them. This is not good for the mums and dads in my community. It is not good for the average household that is on a household income of $53,000. It is certainly not good for the single parents out there trying to raise a family.
Debate interrupted.
I rise today to draw to the attention of the House the Turnbull government's radical right-wing workplace relations agenda. Let us be clear: this agenda is fundamentally un-Australian. Whether it be cutting penalty rates, re-establishing the ABCC or supporting companies in sacking workers because they are Australian, the Turnbull government's approach is extreme, ideological and completely out of touch with the expectations of working people.
Australians are fundamentally decent. We are rightly proud of living in the land of the fair go. When it comes to working on weekends or unsocial hours, Australians have a fair expectation that they will be properly remunerated with penalty rates. The Turnbull government's plan to abolish penalty rates is shameful. The Minister for Employment, Senator Cash, confirmed last week that cutting penalty rates is firmly back on the table. At a time when wages growth is at its lowest in 20 years, the Liberals want to cut the wages of ordinary Australians even further by abolishing penalty rates.
Let's be clear: Labor oppose this policy. Retail workers, hospitality workers, nurses, police and emergency service personnel all deserve fair penalty rates. It is a fairly basic proposition, and an overwhelming number of Australians agree with it. If you work weekends, when most people are relaxing, catching up or spending time with family and friends, it is only right that you receive penalty rates. That is the Australian way. Labor's approach is fundamentally different from the government's. Rather than cutting people's wages and living standards, we believe that government should invest in skills and training, innovation and infrastructure.
I briefly want to discuss the government's attempt to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which has already been rightly rejected by the parliament. Labor's position on the ABCC has been consistent for a decade. We do not support this body, and we especially reject providing a civil tribunal with extraordinary coercive powers which would force workers to provide evidence without legal representation. Labor firmly reject corruption and criminal conduct in the workplace and everywhere else. However, when there are allegations of criminal conduct, they should be investigated by the appropriate criminal authorities, not a civil tribunal, albeit one with extraordinary powers. It should also be noted that, before it was abolished, not one criminal prosecution arose out of the work of the ABCC. There is no justification for the ABCC to be re-established. Labor will stand firm against the government's warped ideological agenda.
Finally, I again want to draw to the attention of the House the government's shameful conduct in aiding and abetting corporations in sacking workers for being Australian in order to employ foreign workers to do the same jobs. In 2016, a worker should not be sacked because they are Australian. But that is exactly what happened to workers on the MV Portland and the CSL Melbourne. Their employers have been issued licences by the Deputy Prime Minister which have enabled these companies to sack their Australian workers and employ foreign workers in their place. What is the result of this? It is flag-of-convenience ships with foreign workers being paid foreign wages under foreign workplace standards doing exactly the same work that Australians had previously done.
The workers who have been sacked are ordinary Australians. They have families, they have mortgages and they have commitments. Because of the Turnbull government's unconscionable collusion with their employers, they are now unemployed. The licenses for so-called temporary work on what are in fact permanent trade routes that the government has provided these companies should never have been issued, and the government should cease this disgraceful conduct which is deliberately hurting Australian workers. If it is fair to pay Australian wages to Australian truckies driving Australian registered trucks on the M1 motorway, why isn't it fair to pay Australian workers Australian wages on Australian flagged vessels that sale our Australian coastal routes? It is the thin end of the wedge. It is a slippery slope, and this government is pursuing this for ideological reasons.
These are three examples of the government's disgusting approach to workplace relations and the contempt they have for ordinary workers. If you work unsocial hours or on weekends, you should be properly remunerated. Labor will protect penalty rates. No worker should be forced to give evidence without legal representation, and allegations of criminal conduct should be dealt with by criminal authorities. Finally, no worker should be sacked for being Australian. This is just plain wrong.
I end tonight where I started. Australians are fundamentally decent. They believe in a fair go and that their fellow Australians are entitled to a fair go in the workplace. Unfortunately, they will not get this from the Turnbull government.
It is a pleasure tonight to report to the House the recipients of the Australia Day awards in Braddon. Bruce Reginald French AO received an Officer of the Order of Australia in the 2016 Australia Day awards. Bruce has contributed significantly to agricultural sciences with his work in gathering edible plant information. In 1999 Bruce founded Food Plants International, an online platform that documents edible plant species worldwide. The aim of Bruce's website is to provide information about edible plants with the objective of helping those in poverty feed themselves using their own local plants. The website has the world's largest database of edible food plants, with information now on over 27,000 plants. Bruce's work has led to improved food security, greater nutritional information and improved health outcomes for people across the globe in developing countries.
Just as an aside, my wife and I spent many years in full-time ministry with the church. I had the pleasure of serving many of those years with Bruce French. You would not meet a man more passionate about justice, feeding the poor or teaching those who live in impoverished conditions how to help themselves. I congratulate Bruce. I particularly want to mention his late wife, Helen, who worked alongside him for so many years, and his wife of today, Deb.
Lawrence 'Buzz' Ronald Green AM from Devonport in my electorate was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia. Buzz received his award also for his service to agriculture, with his work focusing on horticultural sustainability as well as research and product agronomy. Buzz is also the director and chairman of four agricultural companies and has received an Ausveg lifetime achievement award. Buzz is also behind the Learn Grow project, working towards combatting famine in Third World countries. John Leonard Campbell received the Emergency Service Medal for his work serving the community through the emergency services. John Clemhill Richardson was awarded the Ambulance Service Medal. Fiona Tustian was awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal and Senior Sergeant Kerrie Whitwam received an Australian Police Medal.
Recognising our emergency service personnel in the Australia Day awards is especially poignant in my electorate. With 81 fires still burning in Tasmania tonight yet no lives lost, we are always reminded of the work our emergency service personnel do to keep our communities safe. They are the unsung heroes who work days, nights, weekends and public holidays—weeks on end, in fact—when an emergency situation arises.
Along with the major national awards that took place around Australia are the local council awards that recognise those who do the work in the local communities, often as volunteers. In Waratah-Wynyard, the citizen of the year was Fiona Dowling, for her work in bringing women together through Sisterhood. The young citizen of the year was Nikkita Popowski, for working with young children in Wynyard Gymnastics. The event of the year was the Australian 4 Day Enduro, with 230 competitors from across Australia.
In King Island, Bernadette Weitjens was the citizen of the year. The young citizens of the year were Craig Constable and Samantha Constable, who volunteer with the fire and ambulance services. The community event of the year was the King Island Boat Club's Stonehaven Cup. In Central Coast Betsy Compagne won the citizen of the year. The young citizen of the year was Cameron Hingston, particularly for her efforts in basketball mentoring and refereeing. The community group of the year went to the Lions Club of Ulverstone.
In the city of Devonport, the citizen of the year was Toni Muir, for extensive volunteering in the local community through St Vincent De Paul. Declan Vertigan won the young citizen of the year for redevelopment of the maritime section of Devonport. The event of the year was White Ribbon Walk the Talk event highlighting domestic violence. Joan Fawdry, well known to many, was the citizen of the year in Burnie for her work with Make a Wish. Natasha Bakker was the young citizen of the year for her volunteering work with the north west musical societies and groups. The community event of the year was Breaker Morant, a local independent theatre production. Shirley Mathewson, for decades of volunteering in the local community, won the West Coast citizen of the year, and the event of the year was the Beach to Bay Strahan fun run.
Lizzy Gale in Smithton won the citizen of the year for her great work. Eli Perry, won the young citizen of the year, and the community group of the year was the RSL down there for their work in the commemoration of the Centenary of Anzac. Ron Hedditch and Phil Hedditch won in Latrobe for their beautification of Pig Island. Hayley Crack won for her extensive community involvement in La Trobe, and the Latrobe Football Club won for the hosting of many NTFL/NWFL grand finals.
As the House is aware, my electorate has the highest proportion of Vietnamese Australians, enabling me to not only enjoy the colour and vibrancy of this wonderful community but acquire an acute appreciation of the importance of human rights in Vietnam.
On 13 December 2015, I attended the International Human Rights Day celebration in Cabramatta hosted by Viet Tan. There, I had the privilege of speaking to Mr Tranh Minh Nhat via skype. Nhat is an exceptionally strong-willed young man dedicated to Vietnamese social and religious liberty and a reporter for Vietnam Redemptorist News.Mr Tranh was arrested in 2011 along with 17 other activists and sentenced to four years in prison, and three years house arrest. According to the charges, the authorities claimed that Mr Tranh was involved in activities designed to overthrow the government. These arrests coincide with Amnesty International's view that Vietnam may be:
… fast turning into one of South East Asia's largest prisons for human rights defenders and other activists.
Following his release from prison, it was alleged that Mr Tranh violated his house arrest conditions by not reporting to police, even though he had done so earlier that day. He was also accused of communicating with a Catholic priest from the Redemptorist Church, who, according to the police, was 'a man against the state.' Mr Tranh was detained by police for 12 hours and, I am advised, was severely beaten during his interrogations. I have also been advised that the harassment of Mr Tranh has also been focused on his family, presumably in an attempt to dissuade his human rights advocacy. His brother's crops were destroyed, including the destruction of 155 coffee plants, 11 avocado trees and several pepper vines. Mr Tranh's other brother lost more than 380 of his pepper vines, and the family house was stoned in the middle of the night, causing his elderly parents to fear for their lives.
The House is aware of the Trans Pacific Partnership, a regional free trade agreement of which Vietnam and Australia included are signatories. These signatories to the TPP agreed to enhance pro-labour principles and the elimination of discriminatory practices in respect of employment amongst other things. It is right that we leverage off trade developments such as the TPP to achieve more positive outcomes in the human rights space. Australia supports Vietnam's inclusion in the TPP, and, as a consequence of their enhanced trading position, I think it is important that we take a greater interest in matters of human rights in Vietnam. While Vietnam is being welcomed and treated as a valued trading partner, they continue to imprison human rights activists and labour activists at an alarming rate.
Clearly, Mr Tranh is a heroic individual who risked his life and liberty to stand up for the basic rights and freedoms of others. Through my personal interaction with Mr Tranh, I can attest to his courage and his determination to advocate for a better living standard for people in Vietnam. His experience demonstrates the importance of putting mechanisms in place to protect human rights defenders.
Vietnam is party to many human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, amongst others. However, despite Vietnam's human rights obligations under domestic and international law, people such as Mr Tranh, who exercise their civil and political rights to defend the human rights of others, continue to face ongoing harassment, intimidation, prosecution and imprisonment.
The need to assist these activists, whose only crime is to seek the advancement of human rights in Vietnam, is crucial. It is critical that there is fundamental reform for human rights in Vietnam, and this can only occur with the support of the international community in echoing the demands of the people of Vietnam. Human rights is something that we must take an interest in for the preservation of trade, commerce— (Time expired)
2016 will be a tremendous year for telecommunications in Hume, and I am urging residents to keep up the pressure so that we can use programs already in train to improve internet and mobile coverage. In my hometown of Goulburn, close to 10,000 premises will have access to NBN optic fibre to the node. Technicians from Transfield are preparing to install cable, and they will be back there again tomorrow. Work is well underway installing node boxes in north Goulburn—around Bradfordville, Taralga Road, Progress Street and Queen Street—and moving south across the city.
Goulburn is the largest population centre in Hume and the first to have fibre to the node installed. Of course, fixed line NBN is just one part of the broadband solution for Goulburn Mulwaree. Fixed wireless towers will be located at Marulan, Tallong and Wingello to connect a further potential 800 premises to the NBN. The rollout of the NBN is forcing the major telecommunications companies—namely Telstra, Vodafone and Optus—to come to the table with other services.
In a number of locations in Hume—at Tirrannaville, in parts of Goulburn, at Oolong between Gunning and Yass and we will see it shortly in Boorowa—the telcos have activated 4GX capacity to deliver fast internet coverage for areas within 20 to 30 kilometres or more in many cases, of these towers. Because Hume is so vast, the NBN will be delivered in different ways to different locations. But, regardless, fast and reliable internet—whether it be fixed line, wireless or satellite—is coming to all of Hume via the NBN. In Wollondilly and Wingecarribee shires, fibre preparation work is underway. In Bundanoon, Colo Vale, Yerrinbool, Hill Top, Willow Vale and other parts of Wingecarribee and Wollondilly, which I will come back to, the fixed line rollout is happening right now. It will allow 5,500 premises to connect to fast broadband. In Wollondilly, fibre is rolling out to The Oaks, Oakdale and Belimbla Park, allowing 1,100 premises to connect. In coming months, the rollout will extend to Bargo, Buxton, Couridjah, Picton, Tahmoor, Thirlmere and Yanderra, allowing 6,700 premises to connect to the NBN.
In the Yass Valley, the first three of four fixed wireless towers have been switched on over the Christmas holiday break in north Yass, at Mount Manton and at Bowning. These will provide fast broadband to just under 1,000 premises. So it is a busy, busy time for telecommunications in Hume. Through the fixed line and fixed wireless networks—that is, fibre and towers—42,000 businesses and homes will be passed in the next couple of years, which is a really terrific result.
Usually it is not the town dwellers who are the ones contacting me most urgently about communications; it is more often than not landowners, rural property-based businesses and farming families. The strong message to those on outlying properties is all about satellite. Satellite broadband services will be up and operating in the next few months, and we are already seeing a number of retailers advertising their packages for satellite connections. Satellite will deliver internet speeds of up to 25 megabits per second, in affordable packages. It is fast and reliable and will cover those areas outside the fixed line and fixed wireless footprint, which is a fantastic solution for those outside the towns—me included.
Even more than dodgy internet, poor mobile phone coverage is a big frustration for the residents of Hume. I had the great pleasure last year of announcing 18 new mobile phone towers for the electorate under round 1 of the federal Mobile Black Spot Programme. This result came about after many meetings with locals, lots of mapping of coverage areas with the telecommunications companies and much lobbying. I inform the House that the first three of these 18 towers will be switched on in the middle of the year at Windellama, south of Goulburn, at Darbys Falls near Cowra and near Werombi in Wollondilly. This will be a tremendous benefit for the surrounding communities, and I am looking forward to visiting each of these villages later in 2016. Round 2 of the Black Spot Programme is in progress and we hope for more good news. We have done well to date, but I urge residents in Hume to keep the pressure up. Mobile phone coverage and reliable internet are no longer an option. They are vital services for my electorate and for regional Australia.
It was a great pleasure for me to congratulate two of my constituents who both recently received awards for their contribution to their local communities during our local council's Australia Day Citizenship Ceremonies. Firstly, congratulations to Despina Havelas, who received Brimbank City Council's Citizen of the Year award for her amazing work and contribution to children with autism and their families. Despina has been a passionate and hardworking advocate in the Keilor community and beyond for the past decade. Despina was inspired to take action after her own life experience of being a full-time carer for her autistic son, Kon.
Despina founded a non-profit organization in 2008 called Autism Angels, with the aim of continuing her advocacy work and providing support and services to children with autism and their carers. Through her organisation, Despina has helped develop many Autism services in the city of Brimbank, including early intervention workshops, cyber safety workshops and public events to raise awareness for autism, including the Autism Angels Teddy Bears picnic and dinner dance.
In addition to raising awareness and funds, an important objective for Despina is to advocate for the parents and families of autistic children by 'chasing the politicians'. She said:
Up to now, the focus, when we were talking about policies, was on the person with the disability; it is important for parents and carers to be included.
For Despina, it is important that law makers realise that all family members are affected when there is a child with autism in the family and, as Despina says, 'Families are part of the equation.' For this reason, much of the work of Autism Angels has been to create a support network for families and to provide assistance, advice and service referrals to parents and carers. As a direct result of Despina's successful lobbying, Autism Angels provides its very own drop-in centre for autistic children, for those times, in particular, of heightened strain and stress.
Despina was also paramount in creating the first 'all-abilities park' in the City of Brimbank. The park is an inclusive facility that allows children with disabilities to play safely and without constraint. Despina is also pivotal to the Brimbank Disability Expo; she is a member of the board of the Autism State Plan; and is chairperson of the Brimbank Disability Network Group.
Over the past 10 years, Despina's hard work has culminated in over $85,000 in funds being raised for families living with autism, and Autism Angels has received over $50,000 in government support in the last six years. It takes a strong and compassionate person to use their own experiences of adversity to help others. Heartfelt congratulations to Despina Havelas for her very well-deserved award and recognition for her tireless efforts for children with autism and their families.
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Mr Walid Hanna, a constituent and friend, who was acknowledged at the Hume City Council Australia Day awards for his commitment to achieving harmony and reconciliation in our local Australian-lraqi community through sport. Walid and the Iraqi Unity Cup team won Hume City Council's Event of the Year.
The Iraq Unity Cup is an annual soccer tournament that brings together various Australian-Iraqi communities, including Kurds, Arabs, Chaldeans and Assyrians. Many of these communities have experienced division and war in their home country of Iraq and, as we would all be aware, wars and displacements from afar can often have repercussions here in Australia. The Unity Cup, therefore, serves to avert potential divisions within the community by uniting Iraqis as one through the playing of soccer.
Walid and the broader Iraqi community have shown great strength and commitment to promoting a strong spirit of reconciliation, and it is to their great credit that they have won this award. The tournament, which began in 2012, was in response to the unrest in Iraq; Walid explains that it was 'something to try to bring the community together because a lot of them are divided in Iraq now because of the war since 2003.' For Walid the tournament is 'all about bringing these people together'.
Walid Hanna, the Iraq Unity Cup team, the Chaldean Federation and Father Maher from Our Lady of the Flowers Chaldean Catholic Church, as well as the whole Iraqi community, have become an integral and active part of our local community. My electorate has a large Iraqi population and initiatives like the Iraqi Unity Cup go a long way to promoting harmony, reconciliation and cohesion within the community.
Congratulations, therefore, to Walid Hanna and to Despina Havelas for being great advocates and role models for our local communities and for working so tirelessly for important causes within our community.
The government is delivering on its commitment to provide jobs for Australians. Since we were elected, the economy has seen 427,000 jobs created. Under Labor jobs only grew at 1.6 per cent, but under the coalition, in just two and half years, this has increased to 2.6 per cent. This is well above the 10-year average of 1.8 per cent. More than this, we are on track to fulfil our commitment to deliver one million jobs in five years, and last year was the best year for job creation since 2006.
Most importantly, this government will continue to deliver jobs for local communities in rural and regional Australia. Sustainable job growth comes from the government giving businesses confidence and making sure regional and rural Australia have the projects and opportunities they need to grow their local economies.
Across Wannon we are seeing this government's plan deliver local jobs by giving local businesses the confidence they need to employ and to invest. We saw that in last year's budget with incentives to small businesses to invest, to make sure that they had that little bit extra in their pockets to take those risks and decisions to put more back into their businesses and to ensure that if there was an opportunity to employ, they would do so.
We are seeing these jobs in the construction of infrastructure and repair of local bridges and roads. We are seeing them in the increased business flowing from hard-fought free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China, all delivering an absolute benefit especially to our agriculture sector. We are seeing them in the delivery of election commitments, such as the new cancer care centre in Warrnambool, which will provide cancer care for people throughout western Victoria. We are seeing them in the development of trade training centres, like those in Maryborough and Cobden.
The upgrade of the Western Highway through Wannon, for example, is generating 480 local jobs. This $505 million project will see these workers employed during its construction between Ballarat and Stawell. Communities like Portland are benefiting from a tourism boom, thanks to the introduction of cruise ships into the port. Each ship that docks brings with it over 2,000 tourists, and they spend $1 million or more in the local community. Buses take these visitors to the surrounding towns, and there is a benefit into smaller communities as a result. There is also the Whale Trail, which Portland is on. We now have a superb viewing platform to see the whales during the migration season and people can see where else they can go along the eastern seaboard to see whales, as they swim up and down the coast.
The government is also investing in tourism projects like that in the Grampians, where we have delivered $10 million to complete the Grampians Peak Trail, which will also see 35 full-time jobs created. We have the Great Ocean Road upgrade, which means that the millions of visitors to the Twelve Apostles will do so more safely and have more time to stop to see the magnificent view and spend up big in the local community.
It is projects and initiatives like these that are delivering employment opportunities and jobs in Wannon, thanks to the coalition government. Another key aspect of this government has been the improvement in opportunities for young people looking for work—something I have been a strong advocate for since being elected.
In Labor's six years of government, 55,000 more young Australians were added to the unemployment queue. This is Labor's legacy—a legacy of rising youth unemployment, a legacy of neglect. If young Australians cannot find opportunities for work, it means that they cannot get the experience and exposure for a productive life in the workforce. This government has already had success in turning around Labor's mess in this regard. Youth unemployment under the coalition government has fallen from 12.6 per cent to 11.3 per cent.
Last week the CSIRO's chief executive, Larry Marshall, announced that the organisation would shed 110 positions from the ocean and atmosphere staff and a similar number from its land and water division. In the early days of the Abbott-Turnbull government I visited the CSIRO along with my colleagues, Mark Dreyfus and Kim Carr, to participate in an unusual activity for their very busy and focused research staff—a political protest. The staff and their research capacity was being literally decimated—one in 10 faced the chop—and an indignant activist reflex was triggered. Some of those out on the day in white lab coats said that it was their first political protest. One forestry researcher who was facing the chop asked me the question: if Australia does not do eucalyptus research, who in the world will? Now the cuts are more targeted and they are more extreme. This latest directive will see the ocean and atmosphere section lose nearly eight out of 10 staff members.
When I spoke to CSIRO staff two years ago I noted the government was reducing the CSIRO's capacity in spite of its success. This time whole sections are effectively being dismantled because of its success. Mr Marshall has rationalised the cuts as follows:
Our climate models are among the best in the world and our measurements honed those models to prove global climate change. That question has been answered, and the new question is what do we do about it …
Leading climate scientists have responded, arguing that these cuts will seriously undermine Australia's capacity to respond to the challenges posed by climate change. While much has been learned about the patterns and challenges of climate change, they note that vital evidence is still being gathered. The very climate scientists we stand to lose are already focusing on climate change adaptation and mitigation. Indeed, as Tom Quinn of the Future Business Council has said, 'It is impossible to adapt without having access to the latest modelling.'
This group is already doing exactly the kind of work that this new applied approach seeks to favour. When we look back at some of CSIRO's great innovations, it is clear that they have been developed through the kind of basic research that Prime Minister Turnbull sees as needing to be subjugated to applied research. Take wi-fi, for example, probably the CSIRO's most famous invention. It came out of the CSIRO's pioneering work on radioastronomy which involved complex mathematical changes known as fast Fourier transformers as well as detailed knowledge about radio waves and their behaviour in different environments. The basic research contained the solution to a problem other researchers had been working on.
CSIRO created the hendra virus vaccine, Relenza, the first effective influenza treatment. It is no wonder then that CSIRO staff and scientists around the country feel dismay at what this decision signifies. I hope that proves unwarranted, and that Mr Pyne, Mr Turnbull and Mr Marshall will listen to their scientists and give them the support they demand.
I would like to take the opportunity here in the chamber to congratulate all of the good-hearted and kind people who volunteer in my electorate of Higgins. Last year I was able to celebrate with a number of these people at a Christmas in July function to celebrate their great achievements and contributions to our local community.
The guest of honour was Sir James Gobbo, and we resolved at that point that this would be an annual event that would celebrate just how fantastic and how significant it is that people are able to give of their time and themselves to help others.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate a number of residents within the Higgins electorate who have received formal honours and recognition on Australia Day of their service to our country and our community.
Kevin Hillier received the medal of the Order of Australia for his contribution to music through military and brass bands and as conductor of the Stonnington City Brass Band. I was absolutely thrilled by the wonderful sounds that emanated from the band that filled the Malvern Town Hall as 121 of my electorate's newest Australians were recognised as citizens of our magnificent country on Australia Day. I am also very, very honoured to be the patron of the Stonnington City Brass Band.
Five Higgins residents were made Officers of the Order of Australia: Mr Robert Kirby, co-chairman of Village Roadshow, for his distinguished service to business through the movie, cinema entertainment and theme park sectors; Brian Malon for his service to charitable and social welfare organisations; Professor Leon Mann for his work in the humanities and social sciences; Dr Michael Pryles for his work in the law and in legal education; and the Very Reverend Canon David Richardson for distinguished service to religion and the Anglican Church of Australia.
Three Higgins residents were made Members of the Order of Australia: the Hon. John Batt for his significant service to the law and the judiciary in Victoria, legal scholarship and the Anglican Church of Australia; Ian Carlisle received his honour for his work in the fields of faciomaxilliary—a very hard word to pronounce—and reconstructive surgery, to professional organisations and the international community; and Valda Walsh for her significant service to the real estate industry and the community through support for a range of charitable organisations.
I would also like to congratulate those in the Higgins electorate who received the Medal of the Order of Australia, including Leonard Bogatin for service to athletics; Robert Mattingly for service to the advertising industry and the community; Eugene O'Rourke for service to the community, particularly through multicultural media; and Janet Thomson for her service to the Royal Botanic Gardens in Victoria.
These people are all very worthy Australians who have made important and valuable contributions to our community. As I said, at the very beginning of my speech, they are but the tip of the iceberg in Higgins. There are so many people in my community who make such an enormous difference to the people in our local community and beyond, and I thank them.
Last Friday morning I spent some time with Drew, who is a Big Issue vendor, at Central Station. TheBig Issue, as members will know, is a magazine that is sold by people who are homeless to support themselves and it also raises awareness of homelessness in Australia.
It continues to shock me that there are around 100,000 Australians who are homeless on any one night and around six per cent of them are sleeping rough. In my electorate in central Sydney, obviously, the issue of homelessness is a compelling and obvious one.
Drew and I were at Central Station across the road from Belmore Park where every night a tent city springs up. It is extraordinary that in a country as wealthy as Australia and a city as advanced as Sydney we continue to see people sleeping rough, because there is nowhere for them to go. That is the reason that when Labor were in government we had our homelessness white paper and invested substantially in homelessness prevention and alleviation, and in issues around affordable housing. When we were in government we invested in the National Rental Affordability Scheme to build 50,000 affordable rental homes, invested $6 billion in social housing to build 21,600 new public housing dwellings and provided $550 million for additional homelessness services.
In my electorate we saw the building of Common Ground in Camperdown—a fantastic, beautiful new facility where half the people are ordinary low-income earners and the other half are rough sleepers who have been moved in, essentially, straight from the street. I visited there a few months ago to see how well that is operating. We also built Annie Green Court in Redfern for frail, aged homeless people. It is wonderful to see these two physical manifestations in my electorate alone, and I know that across Australia members were proud to open new facilities in their electorates.
The other important issue is the services that go with these new buildings. We invested through the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, which now provides for an extra 180 services, including in my electorate. One example is Platform 70 in Woolloomooloo. Woolloomooloo was in my electorate before it was redistributed out, and it has now been redistributed back in. In its first year Platform 70 got 38 rough sleepers into permanent homes and an evaluation carried out by the UNSW's National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre found a 94 per cent tenancy retention rate. Sadly, much of this funding has been cut under the current government, including $88 million for new building.
As someone who spends a considerable amount of time flying and at airports, I can tell you that a poor experience can send the best-laid plans well and truly out the window, whereas a good one can make travelling an absolute pleasure.
So I was very pleased to hear last week that the Cairns Airport has been ranked in the world's top 20 best-performing small airports for the first time. The OAG Punctuality League report rates airports based on how many of their flights arrive and depart within 15 minutes of their schedule times. In the small airport category—airports that service 10 million passengers or fewer a year, and this year Cairns is expected to service in excess of five million—Cairns was rated 13th, with an average of 88.4 per cent of flights arriving and departing on time. The category was topped by Osaka in Japan at 93.85 per cent, with Brussels second and Panama City third. Adelaide and Perth were ranked seventh and 11th respectively. This achievement reflects the fact that Cairns Airport has been focusing heavily on and investing in new initiatives that improve passenger flows and baggage handling efficiency. Congratulations to Cairns Airport Chief Executive Kevin Brown, operations general manager Kate McCreery-Carr, and every member of their team.
It is followed today by even more new good news: The Cairns Post reports that Singaporean airline SilkAir is so pleased with the uptake of bookings on its Singapore-Cairns route that they are now increasing the number of direct services. This is going to be a great boost to Cairns' international connectivity with Asia, Europe and beyond. It is another sign that Cairns Airport continues to bat well above the average and will be a vital piece of infrastructure as this government drives its northern Australian agenda forward. The $1 billion redevelopment of Cairns Airport, proposed over the next 20 years, will ensure that it continues to evolve as a leading hub for tourism and for the aeronautical, commerce and resource sectors. At the same time, it will provide core infrastructure that is vital for regional, state and national economic development.
Late last month our Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, Josh Frydenberg, released the exposure draft legislation for a $5 billion northern Australia infrastructure facility. This fund will provide concessional loans to build economic infrastructure in energy, water, transport and communications and is on track for operation on 1 July this year. The upgrade of Cairns Airport is already regularly mentioned as the type of project that would be able to access this fund, along with the Mount Isa-Tennant Creek railway, the Townsville Port expansion and the expansion of Outback Way linking Western Australia to Queensland. Momentum on our northern Australian agenda is strong and Cairns Airport stands to be a very key player.
Yesterday I was fortunate to attend the first Blak Markets for 2016 at the historic Bare Island in La Perouse. An initiative of First Hand Solutions Aboriginal corporation, Blak Markets are aimed at providing economic and employment opportunities for young, local Aboriginal people. Also, it is a fantastic opportunity to showcase local Aboriginal heritage and culture.
The markets are held once a month on the first Sunday of each month, and they feature workshops in basket weaving, spear making, shell and boomerang art, and incredible bush tucker, including emu sausage rolls and native thyme, kangaroo and red wine pies and catch-and-cook fishing classes. They provide locals and tourists with an authentic Aboriginal cultural experience that they will never forget.
The Blak Markets have been running since December 2013, and literally thousands of people have gone through Bare Island over that period of time. I am really proud of the people at First Hand Solutions for the work that they have done in establishing what is now a great tourist destination for people coming to the south of Sydney on that Sunday. Yesterday there was a smoking ceremony to kick off the year and a performance by the Yaama Boys, who have done a great job highlighting Aboriginal culture and heritage throughout the country.
As an example of the cultural diversity in Kingsford Smith, I now wish to move to the lunar new year and say, 'Xinnian kuaile!' to everyone in our community that is celebrating the lunar new year this year. To do that in our area, on this coming Saturday, 13 February, I am hosting the second annual Kingsford Smith Lunar New Year Festival at Dacey Gardens in Daceyville. The event will feature lion costumes, traditional dance and dress and wonderful food stalls in the heart of one of Sydney's best Asian food precincts in Kingsford. I thank Botany city council, Randwick City Council, the University of New South Wales and the Confucius Institute for being co-sponsors of this wonderful event. I encourage people to come down to Dacey Gardens on Saturday evening at four o'clock and experience the wonderful Asian culture that we are fortunate to have in our local community.
It is a wonderful thing to be able to highlight Australia's first people and their culture and heritage that exist in our local community in one breath and then, in the next breath, to talk about the contribution that Asian people, particularly, have made to the wonderful community of Kingsford Smith. I am very proud to represent a community with such cultural diversity and help them celebrate this cultural diversity at wonderful events like the Blak Markets and Chinese New Year.
This Valentine's Day is also National Servicemen's Day, a day which marks the date when the last national servicemen, or 'nashos', completed their Army obligations. That was in 1972. For the 20 years before that last day nashos provided 287,000 personnel to bolster their forces across different nasho schemes. For most of the time nashos were called on to alleviate the Communist threat—a threat that had become aggressive in 1951 across Malaya and Vietnam. But there were also other theatres of war where our nashos lent a hand, including Korea, Borneo, Papua New Guinea, just to name a few.
Yesterday we commemorated their service with a wreathlaying ceremony at St Marys. I would like to acknowledge Ron Brown OAM, JP, the State President of the New South Wales NSA, who was present, as well as John Taylor JP, President of the Penrith city ANSA, Mick McConnell and Tony Fryer from the Penrith and St Marys subbranches and Tony Mullavey, the President of the Vietnam Veterans' Association at the St Marys' Outpost Subbranch—not to mention the local police and local dignitaries, including Councillor Karen McKeown, the Mayor of Penrith, and the state member for Mulgoa, Tanya Davies.
Many of our nashos saw active service. Many were called up through a ballot system. As we became more deeply involved in Vietnam, on 10 March 1965, the first nasho's birthday was drawn out of the lottery barrel. Over the next seven years a total of 63,740 young Australian men would be drafted into the army, with the prospect of being sent to war—212 men, 212 Australians, would pay the ultimate sacrifice. We must never forget them. Between the war fronts and the peacekeeping duties our nashos served on the home front too. They played an important role in cleaning up after floods, rebuilding after fire and picking up after cyclones.
I paid some thought this year and I request you all on 14 February this year to pay some thought to our national servicemen. In a strange way, I think there is a good marriage between that of Valentine's Day and that of love. Our national servicemen have surely demonstrated love to our country, love to our regions and have really loved each other as mates. I thank them for their contribution. Lest we forget.
Following up on that 'lest we forget', I indicate my concern and well wishes on that important day. I rise to raise my anger and dismay at the prospect that a community group that provides vital support services in my area is potentially going to be the victim of callous cuts yet again by the Turnbull government. In this case, anyone who has a men's shed in their area should be very concerned about the situation confronting the men's shed in Emerton in my electorate, because it may well be a recipe that is continued on in other electorates.
The men's shed in Emerton has been around since 2004. It is a community based organisation. It provides a safe and open environment for men to be able to raise things that are troubling them, be it with family, work or elsewhere, and to do it in a way that potentially avoids awful consequences for people that are unable to deal with those emotional concerns and other pressures. In our area people like UWS's Dr John Macdonald; the coordinator, Rick Welsh; and a range of other people have been making sure that this service has been there for men in need. It has survived across governments—coalition and Labor—for over 14 years now and it is something that has obviously been recognised for its value.
Imagine my surprise to learn that on Christmas Eve a letter—and it was quite a bizarre letter—was sent to the men's shed in my area. Two things in the letter stood out to me. First, it said, 'The Australian government has outlined a new national suicide prevention strategy and that it is time to build on the current approach by focusing on effective local coordination that allows for regional and cultural strengths.' Then in the next breath it said, 'In line with this strategy, Australian government funding for community based suicide prevention programs will be transitioned to primary health networks,' so away from the local organisation to a primary health network that will then make a decision about whether or not it will fund groups like the men's shed.
The men's shed is now meeting with WentWest, the primary health network in our area. I am a big fan of them but I see no point in creating another hurdle, structure or bureaucratic way in which to manage this strategy that potentially reduces the longer term funding available for these groups, and makes no sense whatsoever. I absolutely demand of the health minister a clear assurance that this new arrangement will not result in men's sheds being shut down and mental health support being denied to people in need in my area all because of some reorganisation—some bureaucratic mindset—that says the they are going to change the way the strategy is run. It is not good enough.
I had great pleasure a couple of weeks ago to announce that five bridges in the electorate of Lyons had been funded under the Australian government's Bridges Renewal Program.. Nearly $3 million has gone to these projects that will enable local government to make necessary repairs to infrastructure around their communities and provide access and increase productivity in those areas. The Break O'Day council were very successful in receiving funding for the Cornwall Road Bridge replacement, $110,000 contributed to a $220,000 project; as well as for the Golden Fleece Rivulet Bridge replacement program, $682,000 out of a $1.36 million project. The Derwent Valley Council has two bridges: the Tyenna Road and the Newbury Road bridges. I was able to visit both those sites with the mayor, Martyn Evans, in last couple of weeks. There is $270,000 that is being contributed by the Commonwealth to a $540,000 upgrade of those two bridges. They provide access to working forests there. I acknowledge the contribution also by Norske Skog, who has access to some of those forests. The Meander Valley Council, with the support of the Kentish Council, has the upgrade for Union Bridge at Mole Creek. It has been well overdue and has secured a $1.1 million contribution to a $2.2 million project. Also, the Northern Midlands Council was successful with the Lake River Bridge on the Macquarie Road at Delmont, securing funding to replace a single-lane timber bridge with a two-lane concrete bridge. That is $719,500 to a nearly $1.4 million project.
On the weekend I also had the pleasure of attending the Training Ship (TS) Argonautat St Helens to see Captain Elliot Fisher, from Bunbury in Western Australia in the member for Forrest's electorate, inspect the cadets at TS Argonaut. They are one of the three naval cadet groups around the country that are vying to become the best naval cadet group in the country. I just want to pass on my thanks and recognition to Michelle Montgomery, who is the commander of the TS Argonaut, and to Julie Watkins as well for the work that they do in what is an extraordinary group of young people there. It is a small community on the east coast.
I also had the pleasure of recently meeting Ethan McArthur, the winner of the inaugural Corporal Cameron Baird VC Scholarship. I was joined at the inspection by my state colleague, Guy Barnett, and also the mayor of Break O'Day Council, Mick Tucker, as well as state MP David Llewellyn. It was a fantastic turnout. The young people there will become wonderful citizens through the work they are doing in their communities and will make contributions for many years to come.
Recently I was approached by a senior person in the Pilbara, concerned, as many are, that Aboriginal communities are being ripped off by unscrupulous outsiders who manage the organisations, buying off board directors while structuring extraordinarily lucrative salary packages for themselves. The Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations does not always seem to be providing the oversight one would expect given its legislated role. The administration of Gumala Aboriginal Corporation has been a matter of notoriety for many years in the Pilbara—$66 million dollars of native title funds have been spent—and many TOs feel that this has been without sufficient regard to the interests of the majority of the 2,000-plus beneficiaries.
ORIC did a routine investigation in 2011, which led to a notice of notice of compliance. But the conduct of former CEO, Steve Mav, seemed immune from action. A new investigation has finally been commenced after years of resistance by ORIC. The details of the extravagance of Mr Mav and his feting of directors have been set out by my colleague in the state parliament, Ben Wyatt, and by Paul Cleary in The Australian. Email correspondence between Steve Mav and ORIC registrar, Mr Anthony Beven, that was protected from release under FOI application has recently been brought to my attention. This shows that the pair were in constant contact; the tenor is very personal.
Some emails have Mr Beven commenting on board election results. Others show Mr Beven actively supporting the removal of the trust body GEPL, which was the only block to Mr Mav's total control. But they warned that his support should not be made public because it might cause people to vote against it. Clearly Mr Beven was a player. Others show the extent of the relationship extended towards planning Mr Mav's political future. On 27 June 2013, Mr Beven says:
Stephen Smith resigning - time to show your hand
Mr Mav, in reply, says:
I am not surprised he chose to retire. The Labor Party will struggle to hold on to the seat.
However, that was not correct. Then in September 2013, Mr Beven got into politics again when he said:
Only one Labor Senator elected in WA - if you were on 5th spot on a full ticket, no chance of election
Mr Beven cannot be permitted to have any involvement with the current investigation into Gumala, and an inquiry is needed as to whether he has breached the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct.
Recently I was privileged to be at the opening of the refurbished Anzac room at the Coal Creek Community Park and Museum in the beautiful South Gippsland township of Korumburra. Much work has gone into the Anzac room. Hanging in pride of place is an Australian flag—a very worn flag, a flag that is at least 100 years old. Very little is known about who owned the flag that is so fragile, but what is known is that it was taken to the Great War and somehow found its way back home.
There is also a large photographic board with photos of the local men who died in the war. On 19 June 1916, in one day, 10 young men from Korumburra and 11 young men from nearby Leongatha were killed. The Anzac room has been dedicated to the Dawes brothers, and it was a very special event for the Dawes family, who were present for the opening. The four Dawes brothers from the Korumburra-Poowong area in South Gippsland went to the Great War. Of the four brothers, only one returned. Three of the brothers—George, Charles and Richard—were killed in action in some of the bloodiest fighting of World War I. One brother, George, was killed at Gallipoli and the other two brothers, Charles and Richard, were killed within a day of each other at the Somme.
The story of the Dawes brothers has been recorded in a book written by brothers Tony and Andrew Moon with some assistance from a third brother, Michael, a retired brigadier. The book has taken some four years to write and tells a heartbreaking story of sacrifice, bravery and tragedy. This book, which is to be officially launched later in the year, will ensure that their legacy and the pain felt by this tight-knit rural community will be remembered.
Special mention and credit go to Rowena Ashley, the site coordinator, Mrs Zoe Sargant, the curatorial officer, and Emma Fellows-Cooke, the education program leader, for their care. It has resulted in a quiet room that demands respect as you move around it.
It was a sad day but a happy day for all those who participated in the restoration of the room, especially in this year, the Anzac year. The mayor was there, the councillors were there and, to our great pleasure, those of us who are old enough to remember it all stood and sang God Save the Queen, to remember the times and the flag that those people fought under and never returned.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the importance of changing the national culture to make disrespecting women un Australian;
(2) welcomes the Government's $100 million Women's Safety Package to combat domestic violence;
(3) supports efforts at the upcoming COAG meeting to engage all levels of government and the broader community on this shared national endeavour;
(4) places on record its deep concern about the use of new technology and in particular smart phone tracking applications by family violence perpetrators to obtain and monitor the location of their victims; and
(5) calls on all governments to consider this as part of their strategy to combat domestic violence and technology facilitated abuse.
This motion aims to highlight a number of things: the importance of respect for women, government efforts to tackle domestic violence, the impact of new technology as a new avenue for perpetrators to exert power over their victims, and how a comprehensive and contemporary strategy to combat domestic violence needs to include measures to tackle technology facilitated abuse. It addresses the sad reality that domestic violence and feeling terror in your own home, your own sanctuary, is still an all too frequent part of too many women's lives, and how technology brings another tool, another threat, another source of power perpetrators can exercise over their victims. Domestic violence campaigner and former Victorian police commissioner, Ken Lay, made the point that domestic violence breeds from a lack of respect for women and the exercise of power over women and their dependants.
Technology is very powerful, and of great concern is that this power is being deployed as part of the power being brought to bear by perpetrators. The vehicle of this new form of power is this—these smartphones. They are great tools for busy people and are near essential in modern life, but they can also be a mechanism perpetrators use to exercise power over their victims. Tracking technologies can be installed and activated by perpetrators without the knowledge of their victims and give perpetrators the power to be able to follow the movements of their victim, who is simply going about their daily life.
Apprehended violence orders can and have traditionally sought to maintain physical and communication separation between applicants and respondents, but what about the secretly installed app or the activated hidden feature on a smartphone which can tell the perpetrator or the AVO respondent every detail about the victim or applicant's movements?
One of the major issues we now face in the modern age is tracking, which can lead to stalking, cyberstalking—an issue that is becoming more prevalent in our community. Every person has a right to feel safe and secure in his or her home, and everyone should feel safe out in their community—particularly, and I very much emphasise this, where courts have had to intervene and find additional protections in the form of AVOs or sentencing are necessary for victims or people at risk to enjoy this basic right.
Concerns have been raised with me by the Peninsula Community Legal Centre CEO, Jackie Galloway, that current AVOs fail to address the activation by respondents of hidden location tracking technology on applicants' smartphones without their applicants' knowledge. This exercise of control and movement-monitoring power is precisely what Ken Lay was referring to when he said that in the event of domestic and family violence, 'there might not be punches, but there is always the exercise of power by the perpetrators'. The key issues raised by the Peninsula Community Legal Centre, when it comes to domestic violence specifically in my electorate, is the number of cases they are having to contend with—one in four of the cases that are before the Peninsula Community Legal Centre, or some 2,000 cases a year, involve domestic violence. There is an increase in the use of technology tracking devices and other technologies, but it is proving to be very difficult to prove that the tracking has been occurring when fighting a domestic violence case. Social media is now a major aspect in family violence, with tracking apps able to see everywhere at any time where the victim is at a specific part of their day. Unfortunately, legislation is not keeping up with technology updates. While some of this technology is designed for good purposes—for example, apps developed to keep an eye on where your children are going—it is also being used in a malicious manner.
New training is now available to help people understand these threats, but the law needs to keep pace with the changes in technology. Control and power are big factors in family violence. The coalition government, to its credit, is implementing the largest package of measures to tackle this scourge in our community. It is not okay to physically or emotionally abuse your partner or family in any shape or form. In 2015-16, the government is providing over half a billion dollars to frontline services and other support efforts, particularly to assist vulnerable Australians—very much so women having to live with domestic violence. It does not need to be like this. We need to get across the impact of technology. Good work is being done in the United States; the Department of Justice has done some work on this, along with the University of Illinois, outlining what the conditions are and how technology needs to be part of requirements if someone wants to remain out of jail or where they are defying a domestic violence order. Victims report relief when they can go about their daily business unsupervised, unobserved, unhindered by perpetrators. Sadly, technology can impede on that opportunity and cause great harm and hardship. We need to make sure, as we tackle a scourge that has been in our community for way too long, we understand the new tools that are being used by perpetrators. (Time expired)
I second the motion.
I thank the member for Dunkley for moving this important motion, and I recognise the seriousness with which the vast majority of members of this parliament take the issue of men's violence against women. I particularly welcome this motion, and the Prime Minister's recognition, that all violence against women begins with the disrespect of women—or, put another way, that violence against women begins with gender inequality, the beliefs and attitudes of individuals, and the structural imbalances in our society that allow some men to feel that they are entitled to exercise power and control over the women in their lives.
Before I came into this place, I spent the better part of a decade working in the Australian technology sector. I love gadgets. I love new technologies. I love the way they empower us to do more efficiently what we already do and allow us to do new things that we had never imagined before. However, unfortunately, for some men these new technologies are also giving them new opportunities to exercise power and control over the women in their lives. You can ask anyone on the front lines of services provisions to victims of family violence, and they will tell you that perpetrators of violence are increasingly using technology to stalk, intimidate, harass, threaten and abuse their victims; to send a constant stream of controlling or threatening messages; to monitor their social interactions; even to track their movements. Law enforcement officials ought to take this trend seriously. The mere fact that this behaviour occurs online does not diminish the seriousness of its psychological impact on victims.
The most extreme example of how technology is being used to exercise power over victims is the phenomenon of so-called 'revenge porn'—threatening to share private sexual images or films to coerce or control victims, or sharing those images publicly to shame and harm victims. You can imagine the impact that sending private sexual material to a woman's friends, work colleagues or family can have. It can cause serious and ongoing harm to a victim's career, reputation and mental health. Given the nature of the internet, once these images are online victims are left with the lifelong anxiety that they could merge at the worst possible time—before a job interview, at the start of a new relationship or when their children are starting a new school and making new friends.
Victims also suffer significant ongoing harassment, often from third parties who have found the images on line and connected them to the victim. This ongoing harm has led victims of revenge porn to suffer from depression and anxiety and, unfortunately, some have committed suicide. The mere threat of these images being shared is often enough to prevent victims of family violence from leaving an abusive relationship, adding an additional layer of malevolent control that can make seeking help even more difficult.
Our laws and police responses, however, are failing to provide adequate protection to victims of family violence in this respect. Victoria and South Australia are the only state governments that have legislated against revenge porn, meaning there is only patchwork protection across Australia. We need to act quickly and respond to the growing harm that is being caused by this emerging practice urgently by implementing new laws to plug the gaps in the protection available to victims.
That is why last year the member for Griffith and I introduced a private member's bill to criminalise revenge porn across Australia. Despite this, the government refuses to bring on this bill for debate or a vote. I honestly cannot imagine that there would be a single member of this parliament who would vote against this proposition, who would argue that criminalising this behaviour is not what we ought to be doing. So why is the government not allowing a vote on this bill?
In response to a letter from the member for Griffith and me calling for debate on this bill, the Minister for Women, Senator Cash, responded that this is quite a complex legal issue and that there are existing legal provisions that could be used to prosecute this offence. Instead of acting, the minister informed us that the government is kicking the can down the road through COAG. Frankly, this is squibbing the issue. There is nothing complex about whether or not we should criminalise revenge porn. It does not take a room full of bureaucrats to tell you that it is wrong and that the law should say so clearly.
And as for existing legal provisions, the Commonwealth DPP told the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee's inquiry into revenge porn that:
There are limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with ‘revenge porn’ conduct.
And that the circumstances in which revenge porn might be caught by existing laws are 'limited' and 'uncommon'.
This is precisely why the member for Griffith and I introduced our bill—to send a clear message to the Australian public, to law enforcement officials and to prosecutors that this behaviour is not only wrong but, clearly, contrary to law. No police officer or public prosecutor should be in any doubt about the intent of parliament with respect to this behaviour.
Talk is cheap in this space. There is a great deal of talk about respecting women, addressing gender inequality and reducing family violence. But this is an area where it is time to act. The government should not delay acting on this issue merely because it does not want to support a bill introduced by the opposition. I am pleased that the Turnbull government has picked up Labor's proposal to hold a national crisis summit on family violence, bringing together advocates, service providers and stakeholders in the one room with decision makers. The Prime Minister should adopt a similar approach here, and adopt Labor's proposal to criminalise revenge porn across Australia. This is a straightforward policy question with a straightforward legislative response.
I congratulate and thank the member for Dunkley for this particular motion.
I want to focus on the issue of technology in this space, that the member also covered in the motion. Cyberstalking by husbands, partners and exs—it those secretly watching and perhaps listening, all from a distance. Cyberstalking is now, unfortunately, a standard part of domestic abuse. It is about power, it is about domination and it is about control.
Spyware is software that is downloaded onto a device simply by opening an email with some embedded spyware in it from someone you do not know. You can download that particular spyware. It can be done by a parent downloading a spyware app onto a child or adult's device, activating it and then deleting visible traces. There can be genuine reasons—those could be the safety of a child—or they can be to track a mother, a child or a family. Spyware uses misleading labels and it does not actually take up much data—you will not notice it. It can be hidden in mobile apps. Someone can activate the camera on your phone or the microphone on your device remotely.
There are spyware companies and websites that offer a service that takes 30 seconds to track any mobile phone anywhere in the world using software that runs on Android, iPhone or Windows operating systems. The service offers the option, and tells you, that the owner of the phone will not notice that they are being tracked. The perpetrator simply monitors the person from the website of the spyware company. There is also the key logger function that records everything the victim types into the phone—so bank account details and other information are also visible on the spyware site. They can eavesdrop on conversations, and key loggers can be installed, as I said, with what looks like an innocuous email. You have geotagging and location services where GPS coordinates are embedded in a photo. Through that, a perpetrator can watch, track and attack.
The amount of threat that is involved in this is extraordinary. We have seen young people attacked through this process. Women's refuges, or those who simply leave a violent or abusive relationship, should immediately deal with their devices—the devices that have tracking systems. Shut off GPS and wi-fi, stay away from social media—Twitter, Facebook, Instagram; whatever—and remember that the perpetrator will be monitoring the sites of your family and friends to see you wherever you are, because you might pop up; they might take photos of you. So please make sure that children do the same. Sometimes the abusive partner, the perpetrator, can give a child an iPhone as a gift during their parents' separation with the sole intent of tracking the family and the mother. Often the children are told to keep this a secret: 'This is between you and me, because you know how much I love you, and I want to be able to talk to you. Or you can tell me when to send a text message when it's okay for us to talk. Or, even better, send me photos.' Then, of course, if you have location services or geotagging turned on, they can look through those photos, follow you, monitor you and have access to track the family.
The government has done a lot of work with the e-safety commissioner, and there is much more ahead to be done. I think everybody needs to know a lot more about their personal devices. When you go and buy any device you need to know the security strengths and weaknesses, and it is incumbent upon all of us to know exactly what our devices can and cannot do and what others can do to our devices. We are seeing more and more technology enabled crime. As far as young people are concerned, when it is someone in their family that they love who has given them this particular device and asked them to stay in touch, they are most likely to keep that a secret. I know it is an issue in women's refuges. In my work to help educate people in the community and in schools, it is one of the issues that I have raised. I also know that local police are doing the same with refuges.
When someone is in an abusive relationship, this is the first thing they need to deal with. It is just a fact of life. It can be the last thing they think of in a very emotional and stressful situation, but I would encourage everybody who is in this abusive situation: they really must do this immediately. It is the first thing they can do to protect themselves and their families, and I commend the member for Dunkley for a very important private member's motion in the chamber today.
In government Labor established the policy infrastructure needed to respond to family and domestic violence and reduce violence against women and their children. The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children commenced in 2010 and runs to 2022. The plan has seen the establishment of Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety and also Our Watch, the foundation to end violence against women and their children. It has also seen the establishment and expansion of the national counselling hotline, 1800Respect. The plan and the work done to give effect to it have brought the national epidemic of family and domestic violence to the nation's attention. It has generated political will needed to respond. The subsequent appointment of Rosie Batty as 2015 Australian of the Year catalysed the swelling public sentiment and turned it into a national focus on family and domestic violence. I am hopeful that David Morrison, this year's Australian of the Year and Our Watch ambassador and director, will help to keep domestic violence in the spotlight.
But it has not all been good news in the national effort to reduce family and domestic violence. It is not just that more needs to be done, though that is true. It is a shame that the Turnbull government has yet to provide a meaningful response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee's report of August 2015 in relation to family and domestic violence.
But it is worse than that. The Turnbull government's cuts are undermining the nation's response to family and domestic violence. There have been cuts in the order of tens of millions of dollars from community legal centres, legal aid commissions and Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander legal services. There has been a cut of $44 million each year to the capital expenditure component of homelessness services. The Turnbull government's failure to adequately resource the family law courts is a national disgrace and is directly affecting victims and survivors of family and domestic violence. The government needs to do better. Unfortunately, on family and domestic violence, as in so many other areas, the Turnbull government's actions do not reflect its words. The Turnbull government says one thing and does another.
It is also not good enough that the government is in here with a motion about technology facilitated abuse at the same time as it is refusing to legislate to make so-called revenge porn a crime. In a report of October 2015, Digital harassment and abuse of adult Australians, RMIT researchers Anastasia Powell and Nicola Henry said:
1 in 10 Australians reported that someone had posted online or sent onto others a nude or semi-nude image of them without their permission
That is one in 10, Deputy Speaker.
The member for Gellibrand and I have introduced a bill for a specific criminal offence in relation to the circulation of intimate images and recordings without consent. We have called on the government to support our bill, both publicly in the press and by letter of October last year. Incredibly, in January this year, the Minister for Women wrote to us, refusing to support our bill and, instead, putting it on the backburner until COAG provides a comprehensive response to technology facilitated abuse.
We say there is no need to wait any longer. In November, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee commenced an inquiry into so-called revenge porn. Support for legislating a specific measure, a specific criminal offence, criminalising the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and videos such as the one that we propose in our private member's bill can be found in a submission to that inquiry from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The submission stated clearly:
There are limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with ‘revenge porn’ conduct.
… … …
In limited situations, the CDPP—
the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—
observes that there may be coverage of such conduct by an offence contra 474.17(1). However, such situations will be uncommon.
That is what the Director of Public Prosecutions said in its public submission to the inquiry in relation to revenge porn that is currently on foot.
Obviously, there are other forms of technology facilitated abuse, like the covert installation of spying applications to read your partner's messages and track her movements, the types of applications that members have already spoken about in this debate. But the fact that there are other responses that may be needed to technologically facilitated abuse, as well as responding to revenge porn, does not remove the need to act decisively and swiftly to do with the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and videos.
We have heard in this debate about the harm that can be done. It is obvious. Passing our bill right now would demonstrate to the community that the leadership of this country is serious about stopping this abuse. So while I support the sentiment of this motion sentiment is not enough. It would be greatly disappointing if it turns out that this is just another example of the Turnbull government saying one thing and doing another.
I rise to contribute to the motion put by the member for Dunkley, the Hon. Bruce Billson, regarding domestic violence, and I commend the member's commitment to important causes and his passion for a variety of policy issues across the spectrum.
In his first paragraph, the member has moved that the House recognise the importance of changing our country's national culture so that disrespecting women becomes fundamentally un-Australian. The question of how to change culture is one confronted head on recently by Australian of the Year David Morrison in his time as Chief of Army. To quote General Morrison: 'We all need to come to grips with our culture and how much it counts.' Although culture is usually intangible, 'it shapes our perspective of who we are as Australians.' The first step is to acknowledge that a culture shift is in fact necessary, that domestic violence is a scourge on our society and is part of a greater problem with gender equality that Australia can and must tackle.
At a national level, important steps have been taken in this parliament and across Australia. We have seen a new focus on the origins and impact of domestic violence, led by the coalition and former Australian of the Year Rosie Batty. Rosie Batty has been an outstanding advocate for tackling domestic violence and she has welcomed General Morrison's championing of this cause.
Another strong voice in this conversation is the Minister for Women, the Hon. Micaela Cash, who joined me in the Hindmarsh Electorate last year for a Domestic Violence forum with the Zonta District 23 Club. I would like to thank all of the groups and organisations represented at the forum, including the Central District Violence Service, White Ribbon, Uniting Communities, Uniting Care Wesley, Migrant Women's Support Service, Centacare Catholic Family Services, Soroptimist International SA and Women's Legal Service SA. It was great to have so many local residents, representatives from community groups and members of parliament come together to share stories and, importantly, provide constructive ideas for the government to consider.
Of course cultural change is only one part of confronting this problem. As Rosie Batty recognised, 'This is a government that has made tackling domestic violence a national priority.' We have demonstrated this not just with words but also with policy and initiatives. The government's commitment to provide appropriate resources to address domestic violence is clearly evidenced by our $100 million contribution to the second action plan under the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children. The package develops a clear path of practical measures to improve the safety of women at high risk of experiencing violence. The package will improve frontline support and services, leverage innovative technologies—something that we have heard from the member for Dunkley and my colleague in Western Australia—to keep women safe, and provide education resources to help change community attitudes to violence and abuse. In collaboration with state and territory governments, the 12-year national plan aims to bring about a significant and sustained reduction in violence against women and their children through a whole-of-community effort.
The Commonwealth is also delivering a $30 million national campaign, jointly funded by the state and territory governments, to focus on how we change attitudes in relation to violence against women and children. Education is fundamental to changing attitudes and achieving the cultural change that is required to eradicate domestic violence in Australia.
Another important initiative is the Building Safe Communities for Women grant, which is a Commonwealth government initiative under the national plan. The Commonwealth government is investing over $4 million across 28 projects to help local communities reduce violence against women. This is so important, as things happen at a local level and not just across the national spectrum. The successful grant recipients will each receive up to $150,000 to develop solutions to local issues, working with local police, local community groups and local welfare organisations. One of the projects is the development of a youth network in Adelaide to better detect and act upon the incidences of domestic violence. I look forward to seeing how these projects bring together governments, organisations and communities to support women and their children experiencing violence, and to prevent it from happening in the first place. As the social services minister has said, 'These projects will give us a better understanding of what approaches work and why—invaluable knowledge that will be shared between the grant recipients and made available to other communities.'
As a local MP, I have heard a number of harrowing stories of domestic violence first hand, and I thank the women who have taken the time to describe their experiences to me. We have a long way to go. One in six Australian women has experienced violence from a current or former partner and one in three has experienced physical violence. This is unacceptable and it should be un-Australian. I commend this motion and the work undertaken by the federal government and many others throughout our community. I commend the member for Dunkley for bringing this motion forward today.
I thank the member for Dunkley for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. When it comes to family violence, I think we can all agree that it is incumbent on all of us to take a leadership role in this parliament. It is a sad face that by the end of this week at least one woman in Australia will have been killed by her partner or former partner. A great nation such as ours cannot passively tolerate such sickening statistics. Unless we take decisive action, this tragedy will be repeated tomorrow, the day after and all the days to follow.
For too many years, far too often, victims of family violence have essentially been the forgotten people, left to live in fear and suffer in silence. Even the use of the word 'domestic' connoted something that was private, a place that we did not go. But we have made great progress over the years in terms of cultural change and attitudinal change. Laws have changed, support services have improved and there is a greater public understanding developed around the issue. But that is not to say that there are not enormous challenges, and some of them are pointed out in this motion.
Of course, one enormous challenge is the issue of family violence occurring in so many of our migrant communities. Late last year, I held a roundtable with Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek and a number of representatives from various subcontinent communities. They face particular barriers to understanding that it is a crime if violence is being perpetrated on them, where they can go to for specific support and the funding that is needed to provide that support. I think that will remain an enormous challenge, but I do want to commend many individual community groups across our society who are doing outreach specifically for women and families in ethnic communities who have, unfortunately, experienced such violence.
In my 10 years as a lawyer before coming to this place, the only time I went to court was as a pro bono duty solicitor on the domestic violence roster at the Downing Centre. I got to see, over 10 years, the consequences of family violence in a legal sense, as well as some of the different forms of family violence. There is physical violence, psychological violence, the withholding of access to children, the withholding of access to money and even threats of deportation. So I welcome the $100 million package the government has put forward. But I think it is important to point out that this package needs to be backed up with practical measures. When you start cutting $270 million from community services, $44 million from homelessness services, $22 million from community legal aid and $15 million from legal aid, the impact is enormous. I saw what a difference it made when successive state and federal governments over that 10-year period put money into these areas, actually invested in them. We were able to have a separate room for briefing our clients. We were able to have more support workers. An enormous practical difference can be made by using that money effectively.
In the time I have left, it would be most remiss of me not to mention that we commemorate the fact that on 2 February—last week—it was 30 years since the brutal abduction and murder of Anita Cobby, a young woman from Blacktown. It was 2 February 1986. I remember it vividly. I remember describing it in later years as an absolute abomination. I remember the scenes of the crowds outside Blacktown Police Station—the noose being held up there.
But I do not want to remember the perpetrators. I want to pay particular tribute to Anita's sister Kathryn and to her parents, who had such grace and dignity at such a trying time, and I particularly want to mention a recent fundraising event that took place at the Blacktown Workers Club, where 700 people gathered—and apparently 700 people had to be turned away. The event celebrated Anita's life and the positive change that came out of something so brutal. Around $200,000 was raised towards building an institution called Grace's Place, named after Anita's mother, Grace Lynch, who was indeed a model of grace in such terrible times. It is intended to be a trauma and treatment centre for children who have experience of family homicide. It is to be built in Doonside. It will apparently cost about $2.8 million and is to be completed in September 2018. I want to commend the organisers of that function, particularly the Blacktown Workers Club, which pledged over $50,000 towards it and have been unfailing in their support of the White Ribbon project. We remember Anita Cobby—we remember her for the wonderful woman that she was—and we say that we will not tolerate such violence in our community ever again.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important motion on domestic violence raised by my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Dunkley. I congratulate every member who has spoken on this issue. The issues around women's safety and domestic violence are well known to most in this place. As a White Ribbon ambassador, I have stood here on several occasions and talked about some of the horrifying numbers that summarise the extent of this problem. Every week one woman is killed as a result of intimate partner violence. One in three women has experienced physical and/or sexual violence and one in four children has been exposed to domestic violence. This is a problem that strikes at the core of our nation.
The Turnbull government are unequivocal in our position that domestic violence is absolutely unacceptable, and we are implementing measures to prevent and respond to this matter as a key priority. We are currently providing over half a billion dollars to frontline services to support vulnerable Australian, including survivors of domestic violence. The National Domestic Violence Order Scheme will ensure the protection of survivors through an automatic national registration of offenders rather than the current state-by-state system. The government has also announced a $100 million Women's Safety Package, which will be a national pilot initiative trialling 12 specialist domestic violence units and four health-justice partnerships.
Points 4 and 5 of the motion refer to the role of technology in violence against women. This can come in the form of applications used by perpetrators used to track and stalk their victims or other ways to facilitate their abuse. However, as is often the case, technology can also have its golden edge and offer positive opportunities for the protection of women and the deterrence of violence. There is a company based in my electorate of Bennelong who seem to have perfected this technology. A little company by the name of 3M. We are touching and are surrounded by products of 3M right here in this place right now. Many people around the world know this global science innovation company as the inventor of the humble Post-It note. Yet, as someone who has been fortunate enough to tour the 3M innovation centre in North Ryde on multiple occasions, I can verify that they make much more than revolutionary stationery products. 3M products can be found on aeroplanes, dusty outback road signs and even in surgery on the human body.
Last year I was advised by 3M of their latest breakthrough: the bilateral electronic monitoring device for domestic violence prevention. This is a GPS based system that empowers victims of violence to go back to their normal lives without the previous threats that hung over them. The technology operates by continually verifying the location of both the aggressor and the survivor and raises an alert when they come within the proximity of each other. This occurs in several stages ranging form an amber alert at several kilometres, to a red alert at 100 metres and an imminent danger alert in the immediate vicinity. The alerts are received at a monitoring centre, and by the survivor, to give time to avoid contact and get to a safe location. The device also features a panic button in case another aggressor or non-monitored threat appears. This technology has been proven successful in Europe and South America. In Spain 3,300 pairs of devices have been dispensed leading to zero fatalities since the start of the program in 2009.
Earlier today I met with two gentlemen—and I do men gentle men—from 3M leading this initiative, Phil Scott and Richard Lord. Richard has over 20 years experience at the frontline of this issue as a former New South Wales police officer. These gents were clearly passionate about the possibility inherent in this technology and how it could be used to change and perhaps save the lives of thousands of Australian women. Richard, who was stationed in the eastern suburbs, which is one of the most diverse areas of Sydney, told me that the last situation that he was engaged in resulted in the death of a women from Point Piper—the most expensive area of Sydney. I am planning to host the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Women for a tour of the 3M innovation centre in Bennelong to see firsthand the opportunity presented by this technological breakthrough. I extend that offer to yourself and every member of this House, and I look forward to the day— (Time expired)
I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Dunkley, and thank him for his commitment to shining further light on the darkness that is domestic and family violence in Australia. Too many Australian women experience domestic violence every day and the emotional, physical, social and economic cost of that is both enormous and shameful. Ending violence against women and children is a challenge that belongs to the whole community, not any one individual or group. In meeting that challenge we must ensure that we have adequately funded support services in place, that justice and protection for victims is readily available and that awareness and prevention programs are ongoing, monitored and assessed for their effectiveness.
We cannot remain silent when we see cuts to vital domestic violence education programs, frontline legal services, women's refuges and support programs. We must also insist on quality reporting in the media, to help build awareness of the impacts of gender stereotyping and inequality, and demand a whole-of-government approach, across multiple portfolios and jurisdictions, to help address the deep structural inequalities in our society.
The motion before us also highlights disturbing new evidence of technology—and smart phone tracking applications in particular—being used by perpetrators of family violence to obtain and monitor the location of their victims. Technology facilitated abuse is a profoundly worrying development that deserves the attention of all governments when developing strategies to combat domestic violence. I join with my Labor colleagues the member for Griffith and the member for Gellibrand in calling on the Turnbull government to support their private members bill to prohibit the abusive practice of revenge porn in Australia.
There are also wonderful examples of very positive ways that technology is being used by women and children experiencing violence. In particular I would like to note some of the applications and websites that are promoted by 1800Respect, the National Sexual Assault, Domestic and Family Violence Counselling Service. There is the iMatter app, for example, developed by Doncaster Community Care and Counselling in Victoria. The app was developed to help young women understand the warning signs of abusive and controlling behaviour in relationships, as well as promote healthy self-esteem. The LiveFree app jointly produced by Doncare and the Rotary Club of Doncaster includes quizzes, scenarios and answers to common questions like 'What happens if I call the police?' and 'Are you safe at home?', with important links to support services across Victoria. The Re-Focus app was developed by the Women's Legal Service in Queensland, and provides a combination of legal information, practical steps and coping tips for women about separation. We know that separating from a violent partner is the most dangerous time for women and their children. This app looks at your rights and options to stay safe.
The New South Wales government's Aurora app rolled out in 2013 masks the user's search history and enables them to call emergency services or a pre-arranged contact through the app if requiring help, and the call does not appear in the phone's call history. It also includes information on safety planning and lists some sexual assault services available. The Positive Pathways app, developed by Zonta House Refuge Association in Western Australia, is a safety and wellbeing app for women experiencing family and domestic violence. The app has the facade of a women's wellness app with inspirational quotes, positive moments and a daily diary which is password protected. The main function, however, is the emergency functionality with audio recording, pre-written help SMS and GPS location and a one-touch 000 call function. MyWitness is a digital witness in your pocket and an emergency response app. It has a personal video safety system that alerts the people you trust most whenever you are in danger, feeling threatened or need help. And KiteString checks up on you with a text message when you are out. If you do not respond, a text message is sent to your friends. No downloads are needed and you do not even need a smartphone.
I commend the developers of all of these apps and websites for the work they are undertaking to support victims of violence, in particular women experiencing domestic and family violence. Finally, I again thank the member for Dunkley for his motion and the opportunity to speak on these important matters. We must always challenge the beliefs and behaviours that excuse, justify or condone gendered violence and inequality in Australia.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) people with dyslexia have difficulty in learning to read or interpret words, letters and other symbols;
(b) dyslexia does not affect general intelligence; and
(c) the primary symptoms of dyslexia are:
(i) problems learning the letter sounds for reading and spelling;
(ii) difficulty in reading single words, such as on flash cards and in lists (decoding);
(iii) lack of fluency;
(iv) reading slowly with many mistakes;
(v) poor spelling; and
(vi) poor visual gestalt/coding (orthographic coding);
(2) acknowledges:
(a) the hard work of support groups, educators and families in raising awareness of dyslexia;
(b) the many programs and services helping students to achieve their best every day; and
(c) dyslexia as a disability through the Disability Discrimination Act 1992; and
(3) calls upon the Government to consider:
(a) continuing to work with the states and territories to complete the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability program and implement the disability loading recommended in the Gonski report;
(b) developing a national program which encompasses accreditation and development of schools which specialise in dyslexia, including early identification, teacher training, school autonomy, assessment and examination;
(c) adopting models such as the United Kingdom model for dyslexia, the Education, Health and Care Plan; and
(d) Dyslexia Aware School accreditation education programs in South Australian schools.
Years ago when I was a union official I was called out to a prominent South Australian retailer, and the issue was that a carpet salesman was not filling in his dockets properly and the company could not read customers' addresses. It was causing all sorts of problems. This was one of their best salesman—he was on the highest end of their commissions and they simply thought he was working too quickly, going too fast, and as a result his handwriting was barely legible on the dockets. They would have to ring customers and ask their address. In the middle of this meeting, in which the managers were being pretty tough on the salesman, he burst into tears and announced to us all that he could not read or write. It was at that point that we found the real issue there in the workplace. It was simply that he was not equipped with the skills to read or to write down the suburbs on the dockets, and it was very, very distressing for him. Once the company realised, it was distressing for them as well because the managers realised they had been giving him a hard time—and it stretched back quite a while—on an issue that he really had no control over. I also remember being quite surprised, because I had not thought that this successful salesman could have been afflicted with this very serious problem.
I think dyslexia is something that is often hidden. It often affects very intelligent people and is often underestimated by the general community. I am fortunate in my electorate to have Dr Sandra Marshall, who is a prominent GP in Gawler, who is president and chairperson of the northern Adelaide group Dyslexia Action Group Barossa and Gawler Surrounds They were formerly known as DAGBAGS but they have given themselves a new name. They have gone around some of the schools—Gawler, Immanuel College, St Brigid's Catholic School and Evanston Gardens Primary School—with a consultant from the United Kingdom, Neil MacKay, who is the creator of Dyslexia Friendly Schools in the UK and a consultant to the British Dyslexia Association. Along with my old schoolmate Bill Hansberry, who is also a student of the Kapunda High School system, as it were, they have run a number of workshops for local educators. It has been about getting those schools dyslexia friendly by being able to identify dyslexia and help the children who are affected by it.
I think this is a very hidden problem, but in many ways it shows up in the statistics, which are disturbing, with 46 per cent of 15- to 19-year-olds functionally illiterate. I had to get people to double-check that figure, but that was the figure in 2011 from the ABS.
We know that there has to be a greater investment in education. Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future' plan does have a stronger focus on a single child's needs, more attention for students, better trained teachers, more targeted resources and more support for students with special learning needs. But we also know that we have to correctly identify dyslexic students in the school system and make sure they get the proper attention in a structured learning system. Phonics is a possible learning system, because it has a lot of one-on-one help. This is the sort of thing we need to do to combat dyslexia in our schools and in our society.
This motion before the House is the start of a long journey for the parliament, but it is a journey that Dr Sandra Marshall, her friends, fellow educators and fellow parents have been walking for a very long time. It has been particularly frustrating for those parents with dyslexic children to be battling a school system that is both underfunded and perhaps does not devote the time and attention to dyslexia that we would expect. I certainly commend this motion to the House, and I acknowledge that it is the beginning of a journey to address this issue for both this parliament and the education system.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion
I rise to speak on this motion regarding dyslexia. I thank the member for Wakefield for bringing this motion to the House. Whilst it is commonly known that students develop and learn at varying rates, for some students reading and writing present a continual challenge. These are the students who struggle daily with the condition known as dyslexia. It is important that we acknowledge and support these students and, for that matter, adults with the condition.
Dyslexia is better understood as a persistent difficulty with reading and spelling. It is a language based learning condition affecting up to 16 per cent of Australians. It impacts on the skills involved in accurate and fluent reading and spelling.
Dyslexia does not affect general intelligence yet it is a lifelong condition which can severely impact on an individual's ability to complete mainstream education and training. We heard from the member for Wakefield about successful salesmen, but there are a lot of famous people who have suffered from dyslexia and have achieved great things such as Steve Jobs.
It has been reported that the estimated prevalence of people with dyslexia ranges from three to 20 per cent of the population and the Australian Dyslexia Association believe that children identified at risk should receive evidence based, multisensory approaches and early intervention for reading and spelling, and teachers must be able to identify, plan and tailor the needs of individual students.
I would like to highlight some of the great work being undertaken by organisations and individuals within my electorate of Dobell to assist those with dyslexia. As elected members, I believe we should all play an active role in creating a brighter educational future for our children.
It was a privilege to be asked to open the Alison Lawson remedial and dyslexic therapy centre in Dobell last year. This centre focuses on a visual dyslexia therapy approach and a program made up of a minimum of 10 one-hour treatments. When opening the centre, the staff's passion for and commitment to what they are achieving to help those suffering from dyslexia was evident. This is why I joined with the Central Coast Dyslexia Association to provide dyslexia information handbooks for primary schools in Dobell. These handbooks help implement the advice of the Australian Dyslexia Association by providing schools with an additional resource to assist teachers and volunteers who work with students affected by dyslexia.
I also look forward to working to help raise awareness of the need for volunteers, including retired teachers, to help implement dyslexia programs in schools on the Central Coast. Programs implemented by the Central Coast Dyslexia Association provide those children with dyslexia with the opportunity to shine and, importantly, cope in a world which expects so much from numeracy and literacy skills.
This work builds on that of Mr James Bond, resident of Dobell, who for over 25 years has been a tireless advocate for people with dyslexia. He was instrumental in securing technology to address dyslexia in our schools. Jim, who was affected by dyslexia, has championed the introduction of text-to-speech computer software in primary and secondary schools. Jim has also shaped and influenced changes to legislation, including the recognition of dyslexia as a disability in various legislation jurisdictions.
Technological advancements to assist people with dyslexia now mean that a quality education for people with dyslexia is possible. In 2014, this government held a policy round-table on dyslexia to look at what is working in schools and what can be done better. One of the many practical suggestions that arose to better support students with dyslexia concerned improved teacher training. Last year the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group report 'Action now: Classroom ready teachers' was released. The report provided advice on how teacher education could be improved to better prepare new teachers with the practical skills required to be successful in the classroom and ensure that all students, including those with dyslexia or learning difficulties, are supported.
This government takes the responsibility of ensuring quality and high-standard education very seriously. I know that there is a large amount of work completed behind the scenes between the states and territories and the federal government to ensure that those children suffering from dyslexia do not get lost in the system. I fully support needs based funding in Dobell schools and I will fight for this funding to schools in my electorate. Thank you. (Time expired)
I would just like to say that I support needs based funding in all schools, not only in schools in my electorate. I would like to put on the record that my colleagues on this side of the parliament all support needs based funding in schools. Dyslexia is one of those learning difficulties that really need support. Students with dyslexia struggle, and there is no nationally accredited program for dyslexia. I congratulate the member for Wakefield on bringing this really important motion to the House. It is something that I am quite passionate about. Dyslexia is not a disease; it is a different way that some people think and learn. Many programs have been run throughout the country over a number of years. SPELD was one of the first programs that was introduced. People have struggled with reading and spelling, despite having the same access to education as others.
One of my sons is dyslexic. I have three children—two boys and a girl. Two of them went to university; two of them completed their HSC; two of them had no problem whatsoever. And two of them have had different opportunities to my son who has spent his life living with dyslexia and all the problems associated with it. His opportunities in life have been much less than the opportunities of my other two children who were able to achieve a tertiary education.
Despite the fact that I linked him into many of the programs that were around at the time, there was no funding for those programs, obviously. You had to self-fund them. In addition to that, the programs necessarily were not well researched and did not work as effectively as they should have. There is a lot more knowledge about dyslexia these days. There are many different approaches, but there is still no national program to deal with dyslexia and to offer opportunities to young people and older people who are struggling with learning because they have dyslexia. What I find really sad is that from the time that my son was in school to today there has been very little progress. Motions like the one the member for Wakefield has put on the table here in the House are exactly what you need to change the way people with dyslexia can access education.
It is estimated that about 10 per cent of Australians are living with dyslexia. As I have mentioned, it is resistant to traditional teaching and regular tutoring. I spent a fortune on tutoring for my son, but it did not work because his way of learning was totally different to the way my other children learnt. He is equally intelligent. He has adopted different techniques and has followed a different vocational line, one where he does not have to rely on learning. Dyslexia can be seen as a language-based learning difficulty. It is recognised in law under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
I would call for a national approach to dyslexia and a full recognition that people with dyslexia learn differently. I also call on the government to ensure that every student, every child, that is living with dyslexia has access to a program that will help them learn to read.
I also rise to speak in favour of this motion and thank the member for Wakefield for bringing the motion to the floor of the Federation Chamber. It is right that there are famous people with dyslexia who have gone on to have remarkable lives and contribute to our society. Albert Einstein had dyslexia and Tom Cruise is another famous person with dyslexia. But the difference between these people who have gone on to have great lives and great careers is the fact that they got early support. A lot of people with dyslexia live with it silently. A lot of people with dyslexia did not get the support they needed when they were younger and have not been able to achieve or to fulfil their lives in the way that others have. That is largely because it is a silent topic. It is something that is not talked about enough.
In more recent times students with dyslexia have been lumped with students with autism, and they quite often miss out on funding and support in their schools because they do not fit into the right category for funding support. That is why I echo the call from the member for Wakefield that our schools need the resources, need the needs-based funding that was put forward by the former Labor government to help all students with a learning difficulty and disability.
Yes, it is true that there are some innovative programs in our schools as well as in some schools overseas. But the problem is that there is no national approach. It is very much a patchwork approach. Quite often a school, a particular teacher or a particular principal has been the champion and has battled their own school and their own state education department to bring forward a program. In my own area of Bendigo we have some schools doing quite exciting work in this space. NETschool, which is a subsection of Bendigo Senior Secondary College, has a special class for students with dyslexia to support those students in re-engaging with education—because, as previous speakers have acknowledged, they learn differently. Some of our primary schools have special classes and use some of the techniques raised in this motion to encourage people to learn.
Part of the great challenge in this space is that we do not know the science. We do not know why it is that children or people with dyslexia learn differently and think differently. There is still a lot of research that needs to be done in this space to understand why it is the brain works differently for people with dyslexia. Simple things like mixing up your own name when you are tired, being able to learn how to drive, being able to read out aloud, being able to remember formulas or phone numbers are a challenge for people with dyslexia. Like all issues of this nature there are varying scales. There is some talk that wearing rose-coloured glasses may help, but it does not help all people with dyslexia.
This motion calls upon the government to consider working with the states. It calls upon the government to work with the states to develop a national program which encompasses accreditation and development of schools specialising in dyslexia. These are all steps we need to take. One of the previous speakers mentioned how things have not improved since her son was at school. That is correct. We need to turn best practice into common practice. We need to see there be a national program to support all children with dyslexia. If they can learn the basics at school then they can go on to be the next Albert Einstein or the next Tom Cruise, or any other number of famous people with dyslexia. But if they cannot master the basics then they will struggle for the rest of their lives.
I will end with a story from a young boy in my electorate. For his eighth birthday he asked for a ride-on mower that was broken—not fixed, not working, but broken. He rebuilt that ride-on mower. Shortly after his birthday a great clip popped up on Facebook as he cut the lawn of his parents' paddock with this ride-on mower that he had rebuilt. This young boy has dyslexia and hates school. He cannot read. His parents just hope that one day it will click into place. They are hoping that his love for motor mechanics will trigger an interest so he can overcome the barriers that he is experiencing in reading, writing and maths. A young boy who can rebuild a motor should not have to struggle the way that he struggling is at school. Our schools should have the resources to support students with dyslexia to ensure that every kid gets the best possible start. I support the motion.
I am very pleased that we have an opportunity to discuss this important issue of dyslexia. Like many people, I have had a personal experience of this. I spent a good decade trying to help my son, going through every one of the particular programs, the coloured glasses, the orthotics—the whole range of ideas that people dreamt up as possible solutions for this problem of dyslexia. I am pleased to say that, finally, my son, in his late 20s, worked his way through these issues and ended up with a first class honours degree from Curtin University, so these things can be overcome. But I do understand, at a very personal level, the trauma that can be involved.
I want to say first up that we have to make sure that we are not creating instructional casualties. There is a very strong argument that many of the children that are currently diagnosed as having learning difficulties are in fact the victims of failed pedagogy. There is an increasing understanding that some of the fads that we adopted in the 1980s, in terms of the way in which we taught reading, have contributed to this problem. I think the very first thing that we have to do is look at our pedagogy. If we get our pedagogy right and use an explicit instruction model, then we know that around 95 per cent of children will be able to readily learn to read and write. But there will always be some children for whom there is an added problem that cannot be solved by the pedagogy alone.
I have great respect from Mandy Nayton, who is the Executive Director of SPELD in WA. She is doing extraordinary work with schools and in prisons to ensure that we have the best possible way of delivering literacy to our community and that we really have an evidence-based system. It would be true to say that Mandy has some concerns about some of the proposals. I want to put on record some of her comments.
She says: 'I think, if we are going to head down the dyslexia-friendly schools path, we need to be very careful about the model we select and the message we are sending. We are of the view that a dyslexia- or learning-disability-friendly school is a school that is inclusive, welcome and responsive to a diverse range of needs of all students, while maintaining high expectations from all students; provides evidence-based instruction to all students, including well-delivered oral language and phonological awareness instruction in Foundation Year 1; has a structured synthetic phonics program for all children in the early years; and, throughout the primary years, has explicit instruction in vocabulary, reading comprehension and spelling, in addition to a systematically delivered program that teaches the foundation skills necessary to write accurately, fluently and with meaning. Children with learning difficulties, including dyslexia, will be far more easily identified in those schools because they will generally be the children who have persistent and enduring difficulties in learning to read and write, despite this high quality instruction.'
It is important that we collate the knowledge that we have nationally and that we have a sound, evidence-based way of proceeding with this. But we must first and foremost ensure that we are not creating instructional casualties with a failed model of pedagogy.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that Vietnam Veterans Day:
(a) is held on 18 August every year;
(b) commemorates the service and sacrifice of the almost 60,000 Australians who served in the Vietnam War, including the 521 who were killed, and the 3,000 wounded; and
(c) was, until 1987, known as Long Tan Day, which commemorated the service of the 108 personnel of D Company 6RAR, who on 18 August 1966, with limited supplies and in torrential rain, successfully fought off 2,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops near the village of Long Tan;
(2) reiterates its sincere appreciation for the service of all veterans of the Vietnam War; and
(3) expresses its regret that many veterans of the Vietnam War did not receive appropriate recognition of their service upon their return to Australia.
Vietnam's veterans stay is held on 18 August every year, and commemorates the service and sacrifice of the almost 61,000 Australians who served in the Vietnam War, including the 521 killed and the 3,000 wounded. Vietnam Veterans Day was, until 1987, known as 'Long Tan Day', which originally commemorated the service of the 108 personnel of D Company, 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment—6RAR—who on 18 August 1966, with limited supplies and in torrential rain, successfully fought off 2,000 North Vietnamese and Vietcong troops in a rubber plantation off the village of Long Tan. Long Tan Day came about on 18 August 1969, three years after the Battle of Long Tan, when veterans of 6RAR gathered at the site to raise a cross to commemorate their fallen comrades.
Australia's engagement in the Vietnam War had troop numbers winding down from late 1970, and a complete withdrawal by December 1972. The Royal Australian Air Force returned to Vietnam in April 1975 to conduct humanitarian missions—specifically the evacuation of South Vietnamese civilian refugees and orphans, which concluded on 25 April 1975 with the evacuation of the Australian Embassy. By 1972, for all but a few the Vietnam War was over. But what many Vietnam veterans did not realise at the time and that occurred through painful experience over the proceeding decades, was that there were new battles waiting for them at home. Many of Australia's servicemen returned to Australia with little fanfare or recognition, let alone gratitude. What they experienced in the subsequent months and years ahead was a contemptuous and unwelcoming reception from the Australian public.
Many faced vilification upon their return to Australia—even from some politicians—tarred by stereotypical representations of the Vietnam War, particularly those popularised in American film. Some Australians laid blame for the Vietnam War, including Australia's decision to enter it, at the feet of returned servicemen. Veterans were accused of genocide, murder and rape, precisely the things that they had gone overseas to try to prevent. For those who had sustained injuries, physical and psychological, or who had lost friends in the war, these accusations took a serious toll on their morale and mental wellbeing. Unfortunately, to this day many have never fully recovered.
Over time, Long Tan Day was increasingly recognised and commemorated by all Vietnam veterans, and in 1987 Prime Minister Bob Hawke, following the welcome home parade for Vietnam veterans, announced that Long Tan Day would be known as Vietnam Veterans Day. On that day 25,000 Vietnam veterans marched in Sydney to a reception by several hundred thousand members of the public. The commission of a national memorial for the Vietnam War in 1992 was another important step forward in recognising the service of the 61,000 Australians who fought in Vietnam and the sacrifice of the 521 who never came home. It is to our eternal shame that it took us so long as a nation to recognise the service of those 61,000 Australians, including the 19,450 young men who were conscripted. And while we have come a long way since 1972, there is more to be done.
On 18 August every year, thousands of Vietnam veterans and their families attend commemorative services throughout the country. However, the experience of many veterans is that Vietnam Veterans Day is still little-known and seldom commemorated throughout the wider community. Some veterans, because Vietnam Veterans Day is not an officially-gazetted national day of commemoration, struggle to persuade their own RSL sub-branches to hold a ceremony.
I believe that the time to officially gazette Vietnam Veterans Day is long overdue. Next year will be the 30th anniversary of Vietnam Veterans Day, and it would be wonderful to see the day gazetted in time for that anniversary. Officially, gazetting Vietnam Veterans Day will ensure that it is commemorated widely across Australia.
Gazetting Vietnam Veterans Day would cost the government nothing, but it would mean so much to our surviving Vietnam veterans and to the memory of those who are no longer with us. I take this opportunity to call on the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to take action to officially gazette Vietnam Veterans Day as a national day of commemoration. I commend the motion to the chamber.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
I thank the member for Ryan for moving this important motion, and also commend her on her powerful speech. It really is imperative that we as a nation take the time to pause, to reflect on the enormous sacrifice made by our defence personnel. And in the case of the almost 60,000 Australians who served in the Vietnam War, including the 521 who were killed and the 3,000 wounded, we must also reflect on the way we as a society treated them upon their return. We must acknowledge the emotional scars this created, we must learn from our mistakes, and we must now show the appreciation and recognition that was in many cases absent immediately after the war.
This year Vietnam Veterans Day will hold a special significance, because it will be 50 years to the day since the Battle of Long Tan. The Battle of Long Tan represents a very important turning point in the war in Vietnam, and is often called a defining moment in our involvement in the conflict in Vietnam, as we have just heard from the member for Ryan. It was 18 August 1966 that this famous battle took place, a battle between an Australian battalion of just over 100 men and up to 2,000 enemy troops.
As we approach the 50th anniversary of this battle, I am very aware that many of our Vietnam veterans are now well and truly in the autumn of their lives. This is often a time when they need the most support, and so I want to take this opportunity today to pay tribute to and to thank the wonderful organisations who work tirelessly to support our veterans. There is the RSL, of course. My own father-in-law, a Vietnam veteran, passed away late last year, and the RSL was a great support to him in his final months and also to our family following his death. And here in the ACT we also have the ACT branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia and the Vietnam Veterans and Veterans Federation ACT. Both of these organisations do a wonderful job in supporting the veterans of the ACT: in advocating on their behalf. in providing assistance to individuals lodging claims with the Department of Veterans' Affairs or dealing with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in providing social and emotional and even financial support when it is needed.
As we know, these organisations are predominately run by volunteers, and often, usually, on the smell of an oily rag. But the role they play and the support they provide is vital to the physical and emotional wellbeing of our veteran community, so I want to take this opportunity to thank them. Today, I would like to single out one individual who has made an enormous contribution to the veterans community here in the ACT. Peter Ryan was president of the ACT branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia for a decade, from 2002 to 2012. He is currently a national vice president, and vice president of the ACT branch. Peter has personally assisted hundreds of veterans to ensure they receive their entitlements. He even gained a law degree late in life to make himself a more effective advocate. He has made a significant contribution to the interests of the war veterans community not just here in Canberra but also nationally. In particular, he has been the driving force for the success of Vietnam War commemorative activities in the ACT. Unfortunately, Pete is battling poor health at the moment, and I know this is of great concern to his many friends and his colleagues in the veterans community. So I want to take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge his enormous contribution and to thank him for his ongoing dedication and to hopefully cheer him up in the process.
In summing up, Vietnam Veterans Day is an incredibly important day. It is a chance to pay tribute to the men and the women who served in Vietnam, to those who made the ultimate sacrifice and to those who were wounded either physically and/or emotionally and who still bear the scars. And in summing up, I also want to acknowledge the sacrifice of the families who supported those Vietnam vets. As I mentioned, my late father-in-law was a Vietnam veteran, and my late mother-in-law maintained that she got a different husband when he came back from the war. He really did bear the scars, both physically and emotionally, from the war. I do want to acknowledge and thank the families. They went through a very tough time. Chris tells me about a time when protesters stormed one of the bases that they were living on, and that was terrifying for the women and the children who had to see that. They were there just trying to mind their own business, just living their lives without their fathers, so thank you to them. Lest we forget.
It is with great pride, as the member for Herbert based in Townsville, that I speak on this private member's motion from the member for Ryan on Vietnam Veterans Day and on the veterans of the Vietnam War. The period from 2014 to 2018 is an important period for our country. It is the centenary of events from the First World War. 2015 saw us commemorate the centenary of the Anzac landing; 2015 saw the centenary of the 3rd Brigade, which is based in Townsville; but 2016 will see the start of the 50th anniversaries of the major conflicts of the Vietnam War. We need to reflect upon the 60,000 men and women who served our country so bravely over there and the 521 who died—who paid the ultimate sacrifice and were killed; and upon the circumstances under which they served, and the respect they were denied during that time. With the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan coming up on 18 August this year, it is right and proper that Brisbane 6 RAR will be the focal point for those commemorations. The Battle of Long Tan was a fierce battle: there are men in Townsville who will tell you all about it, given the opportunity.
Townsville is a great city when it comes to Vietnam veterans. We are the place where Anzac Day really started its commemorations again and became relevant again.. We drove it. The two most important positions in the City of Townsville are the 3rd Brigade Commander and our mayor. It is a relationship our city holds dear—that is, the relationship between the ADF and our veterans. The Howard government gave back to the people of Townsville Jezzine Barracks, which is at the end of our of beautiful Strand. The redevelopment there by the Townsville City Council, aided by funds from the federal government, is now a beautiful parkland.
I would like to see a monument to Vietnam veterans in Townsville. The Vietnamese government still do not like to have groups of Vietnam veterans making pilgrimages to sites in Vietnam. It is difficult for people to get across there, as veterans. Our city was immortalised in the Redgum song—'And Townsville lined the footpath', and they were 'young and strong and clean'. I would like to see Townsville—and I have spoken about this to my Vietnam veteran groups—as the spiritual home of the Vietnam veteran. I would like to see a place where we have a bronze of a soldier coming out of a rice paddy field, in his greens and his slouch hat and his SLR. I would also like to see a part of this monument being a place of peace, and a part of it being a place of healing. As the previous speaker has said, and as the mover of the motion, the member for Ryan, has said: it is tough being a Vietnam veteran.
As part of one of my first acts as the member for Herbert, when we were sending 2 RAR across to Afghanistan in 2010, I was walking down to the function with a retired RSM. General Gillespie gave the speech to the army, and he spoke to all the families there about what it was to be a member of the Defence family. And as we were walking back, I said to this old bloke—he was telling me that he had served in Vietnam—'did you get all this when you left?' He said: 'We got nothing when we left and we got less when we came back. We were told to get out, get home, get dressed in civvies, and get off the base.' And he said it with a smile on his face, and a little bit of irony. But the thing is that they did do it tough. It was not a popular war, and many of them had no choice about going there. I tell everyone that I never served—and the country and the ADF are both better for that. I think those are the things that we have to understand—that we put people who were conscripts into that place. We put people in that place who did not want to go over there, and they showed great bravery in going there.
We as a country must make sure that, when we come to this period of the 50th anniversaries of the Vietnam conflict, they are held with as much esteem and as much respect as we give to the Centenary of Anzac, and to the centenary events from World War I. I know that ex-Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Michael Ronaldson, was hugely responsible, and hugely responsive to the Vietnam veterans. And I urge my Vietnam veterans to make sure that they do come out. It is hard now when you go to the Vietnam veterans' events, and they all have to stand there—at attention and at ease—when they are all getting towards needing a stool or a seat now. The Vietnam veterans are very popular in Townsville, and they are a very important part of our lives—and long may they be. Lest we forget.
I am very, very pleased indeed to rise today to support this motion from the honourable member for Ryan. The first Vietnam Veterans Day was held on 18 August 1988 to mark the 22nd anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. Also in 1988, the government announced that a site would be provided on Anzac Parade for a Vietnam veterans memorial. The first Vietnam Veterans Day was commemorated at the 1988 National Congress of the Returned & Services League, and it was supported by financial assistance by the Hawke government and attended by Prime Minister Bob Hawke, of which I am very proud.
On 18 August 1966 the Battle of Long Tan was fought, primarily between Delta Company of the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, supported by other Australian task force elements, and a force of up to 2,500 from both the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese Army. Starting in the afternoon, the Battle of Long Tan was fought in a rubber plantation and lasted until the early hours of 19 August. The Australian forces were able to repel the enemy assaults and inflicted remarkably heavy losses on the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese Army. It was perhaps the most significant battle of the Vietnam War for the Australian forces. Some 18 Australian soldiers died, and another 24 were wounded. It was, without a doubt, the most famous action fought by Australians over our very long period of engagement in the Vietnam War.
The Vietnam War took a very heavy toll on our nation. Unfortunately, many of our Vietnam veterans did not receive the appropriate recognition for their service and sacrifice when they returned home from the war. As ever, the Australian soldiers serving in Vietnam upheld the very high traditions and standards of the Anzacs and remained faithful to one another and to their duty to our nation.
On Vietnam Veterans Day, Australians pause to remember the service and the sacrifice of all those who fought in the Vietnam War. More than 60,000 Australian service men and women were deployed to Vietnam between 1962 and 1975, with some 521 killed in action.
To recognise the participation of Australian service personnel in the Vietnam War, the Australian government is undertaking a range of commemorative activities over the next 12 months. Labor has provided and will continue to provide bipartisan support for these commemorations. Further, Labor has continued to support the government's offer to repatriate the remains of deceased Vietnam veterans who are buried at the Terendak Military Cemetery, in Malaysia, and the Kranji War Cemetery, in Singapore, if requested to do so by their families. These are important markers for what must be an important series of events for our nation.
It is vitally important that we remember that those who survived the Vietnam War nonetheless endured great hardship in the aftermath of that conflict and that they returned home with both physical and emotional scars. Sadly, the attitudes that they encountered upon their return to Australia can only have exacerbated their struggle with the demons of the past. These were people who were obeying the lawful instructions of their government, and to have thrown at their feet the sins of the Vietnam War was, of course, an enduring outrage. It was, very sadly, the fact that many Australians failed to provide those veterans with the recognition or, indeed, the gratitude to which they were entitled. It meant that the political conflict around the Vietnam War became for them a question of personal conflict and, all too often, of personal shame.
I am pleased to say that I believe Australia has learnt critical lessons from the Vietnam War, and one of those is that we properly recognise the work and contribution of the ADF and our veterans. We properly acknowledge the fact that our young men and women are serving overseas on the lawful instructions of their government and that they are not part of the political debate that deploys them. There is, I think, in today's political milieu a careful distinction with the political debate which gives rise to deployment—and, of course, that has in recent times been exemplified by the fact that those service men and women who served in Iraq are honoured by both sides of parliament and the community as a whole, notwithstanding the fact that that war itself was a matter of sharp political debate. This distinction is critical because those young men and women should not be held accountable for the decisions that deploy them. That properly rests with government and the parliament.
On that basis, I am very pleased indeed to support this resolution so that the scars of the past can continue to heal, so that the service of our Vietnam veterans is put into a proper frame and so that we as a nation can acknowledge and honour their work and their sacrifice, notwithstanding the fact that that war remains a matter of sharp political contest.
I am very pleased to speak on this most important motion on Vietnam Veterans Day. I thought I would start by quoting a passage written by Private Jim Richmond, who was injured in the Battle of Long Tan:
I rolled over on my side hoping that the mud would dry out the wound and help to stop the bleeding. The artillery was still coming in and it was dark by now and I knew I'd get no help till morning at least. I kept hoping that the artillery wouldn't get me … I was worried about my mother, and I kept thinking if I died she would be up shit creek, so I prayed a lot and made a lot of promises, but I'm afraid I never really kept any of them after I got back home. It was the longest night I've ever known. The artillery was still coming in and I can remember thinking, "This one's going over, and this one's falling short, and this one's for you Jim." ... The other thing that was really worrying me was the thirst. I drank all my water and during the night I got painfully thirsty and reckoned if I could survive the Viet Cong troops and the artillery I'd probably finish up dying of thirst. I just lay there helpless and praying and trying to stay awake and wishing to hell it would get light soon.
Private Terry Burstall said:
We recovered the bodies of our friends who had been laughing living beings the day before. Nothing takes the supposed glory out of war more quickly than the sight of dead mutilated friends. Unfortunately it brings about a hardening of feeling toward your enemy that pushes normal human feelings of compassion to the back of the mind. It brings conflict down to a very personal level and gives you the licence to remain aloof from the suffering of others as long as your own little band is protected.
We lost over 500 Australians in the Vietnam conflict. What is shameful for this nation is the way we treated those service men and women when they returned from Vietnam. When we should have been holding them up as heroes, they were demonised by many people, by many segments of Australian society. That is to our eternal shame.
When you look at the long bow of history of the previous century, the battle in Vietnam was just one small conflict in the war against communism, a war that was eventually won. The domino theory was real at that time in history. If you go back to the early sixties, there was a real concern, a real debate, about what the best form of government organisation was. Was it the communist form of government or was it free markets, giving individual liberties? That debate was still a practical experiment. The Vietnam War was actually a holding pattern against communist advance. If you look at it like that, it was successful. During the late sixties and early seventies the nations that believed in free markets and freedom of the individual became stronger. They grew stronger economically, providing more resources and prosperous standards of living for their people.
When we entered the eighties, the contrast between governments that had gone down the track of communism and governments that had gone down the track of democracy and freedom became obvious through the lifestyles that one system was able to achieve against the other. Many of those nations that, if Vietnam had fallen quickly, would have turned over to communism and gone down that track adopted the policy of free markets and democracy. We have seen that that has made the world a more prosperous place. That has made all those nations that would have gone down the communist track more prosperous places. We have the Australian veterans and the South Vietnamese veterans who fought the battle against communism to thank for that.
I thank the member for Ryan for this motion to commemorate the service and the sacrifice of the almost 60,000 Australians who served in the Vietnam War. Vietnam Veterans Day is an important day and a highly valued commemorative occasion in my electorate of Newcastle. As I am the daughter of a Vietnam veteran, it is a day that holds particular significance for me and my family. Newcastle and Hunter Region Vietnam Veterans and indeed their predecessor, the Newcastle branch of the Vietnam Legion Veterans Association of Australia, have always been at the forefront of efforts to commemorate those who served in the Vietnam War.
Having established what is believed to be Australia's very first memorial for Vietnam veterans, in the War Memorial Grove of Civic Park, Newcastle, we have gathered as a community since the mid-1970s to remember the service and sacrifice of those who served in Vietnam. This first memorial was a very modest stone plinth with a bronze plaque inscribed with the single word 'Vietnam'. Whilst that original memorial holds great significance, a new Vietnam memorial was unveiled in Civic Park in 1987, almost 40 years ago now. Importantly, the names of the 19 local men who were killed in action are remembered on this memorial. Every year at the Vietnam Veterans Day service the 19 Australian flags lovingly embroidered with the names of those who did not return are also mounted at this memorial for all to see.
The Newcastle and Hunter Region Vietnam Veterans association has long been a strong voice and advocacy service for the veteran community in my electorate. Established, as I said, in the early 1970s by local Vietnam veterans to help and assist other Vietnam veterans, their families, those who had fallen on hard times or those who just needed to be reassured that they were still part of a wider community, the Newcastle and Hunter Region Vietnam Veterans association has now expanded its services to provide assistance to veterans from all conflicts.
Many Vietnam veterans found the re-entry to civilian life both disturbing and abrupt. There is no denying that the lack of support and compassion in the wider community compounded matters at the time. As a young child, I was protected from much of the protest that was underway about the Vietnam War. My mother, sister and I lived in the sheltered Army village of Holsworthy while my father was in Vietnam. Like many families, however, we still live the impacts of that war today.
The belated Welcome Home parade in Sydney in October 1987 at least went some way to redressing some of these issues. I recall very clearly the profound impacts that day had on so many veterans and their families. I met men who had served with my father in Vietnam who had not seen their families since they returned to Australia, but they were finally reunited at the parade with children they had not seen for almost two decades. The belated Welcome Home parade was the first significant national act of commemoration of the Australian experience of war in Vietnam. Twenty-five thousand veterans took part on that day. As a nation, we finally acknowledged that we were wrong to shun or abuse those service men and women on their return. Many veterans could now let go of much of their anger and feelings of rejection.
But war is hell, and today it is estimated that 56 per cent of Vietnam veterans in Australia are living with post-traumatic stress disorder. We know that 40 per cent of post-traumatic stress disorder has a delayed onset and that the diagnosis of Vietnam veterans has mushroomed since 2000, 30 years after the war. So there is a very clear need for long-term ongoing support of veterans upon their return from war. No government or nation should send troops into harm's way if it is not prepared to provide the necessary support to those men and women upon their return. For many veterans, their lives and those of their families have suffered untold damage. That is the tragic human cost of war and we should never forget it or, indeed, squib on our obligation to provide the necessary lifelong care and support to those in need.
I am pleased to be able to speak today in honour of Australia's Vietnam veterans and I thank the member for Ryan for putting forward this important motion. I was born in 1974 so my understanding of Australia's involvement in Vietnam is through talking to veterans and through reading rather than my personal experience. Like most Australians of my generation, I have not been called upon to serve in the manner that was required of young Australians of the Vietnam era and, indeed, of earlier eras. I am very conscious of the fact that my generation has not been required to make those sacrifices.
I am troubled by the experiences of many Australian solders when they returned from Vietnam. From discussions with many veterans in my electorate and elsewhere, it is clear that many of our returning Vietnam veterans were not treated with the honour that their service deserved. Many veterans were badly treated on their return to Australia. Many felt that they were held to blame for the political decisions of governments over which they had no control. Of course, our solders were just doing as they were instructed. They did not start the war; they did not get a say in it. They were simply doing their jobs and risking their lives in the process.
More than 500 Australians died in Vietnam. They did so as representatives of our nation. Those who returned should have been treated with the respect and admiration that has been afforded to veterans of other conflicts. They should have felt the gratitude of our nation. Sadly, many did not. In my lifetime there has been a noticeable improvement in the respect in which Vietnam veterans are held in the community. That is seen most clearly on Anzac Day where Vietnam veterans march with pride and are embraced by the community.
As a nation we have moved beyond the state of blaming soldiers for unpopular wars. Many Australians did not support our involvement in the Iraq War but, as a nation, we knew that the soldiers were not to be held to blame for any personal views that people might have had on the conflict. Regardless of what individual people thought about the war, as a society we knew that our soldiers were conducting themselves in a professional, honourable manner in the best traditions of the ADF. It is sad that we did not have that attitude after Vietnam. We should have. We must never again allow a situation to develop where returning soldiers are held responsible for unpopular conflicts. Vietnam Veterans Day has gone some way in recent years to redressing this historical injustice. Commemorated on 18 August every year, this year it marks 50 years since the Battle of Long Tan—the Battle of Long Tan, of course, being in 1966.
The number of Australians involved in Vietnam was enormous—60,000 service personnel and more than 500 of them paying with their lives. Long Tan was one of the defining chapters of our Vietnam campaign and it is appropriate that in 1987 the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, declared that the Day of Long Tan would henceforth be recognised as Vietnam Veterans Day. In that battle Australians showed extraordinary courage and perseverance, despite being outnumbered and with a limited supply of artillery to hold the line until reinforcements arrived.
In my area there is a thriving community of ex-services organisations, all of which have representatives who served in Vietnam. The Oatley, Padstow, Penshurst, Panania and Mortdale sub-branches all have Vietnam veterans in their ranks, as does the Riverwood ex-services branch. Each year veterans from the St George area and other parts of Sydney gather at Bankstown Sports Club for the commemoration of Vietnam Veterans Day. It is now a well attended event by hundreds of people, many of whom also attend the service at the Cenotaph in Martin Place.
We have come a long way in acknowledging the sacrifices of our Vietnam veterans. That is as it should be, and we must ensure that the poor treatment of Vietnam veterans is never replicated in any future generation of returning Australian soldiers.
This is a really important motion that the member for Ryan has brought to the House. It is one that deals with the conflict in Vietnam, one of the most controversial conflicts that Australia has engaged in and one that, in the end, had many victims—not only those who lost their lives and were injured but those whose lives were changed. It impacted their families and their overall psychological wellbeing. I know members of this parliament have conversed and worked with many of those veterans over the years—I know I certainly have.
Some partners of veterans have come together and formed an organisation in the Shortland electorate. These women work really hard to make sure that they get the support and services that they need and the support and services for the Vietnam vets who were so injured in so many ways by that war.
I note this motion refers to Vietnam Veterans Day, which is 18 August every year. They have a service in Newcastle that is very poignant. It has a flag for every soldier who lost their life, and every year that person's name is read out and a member of that person's family is in attendance. At that ceremony, young people who lost their lives and some who were more career soldiers are remembered. We learn about the people who went to Vietnam and fought there.
Similarly, I attend the service at Keith Payne Vietnam veterans hostel. As we all know, Keith Payne was a Vietnam veteran and they named an aged-care facility after him. It has a fantastic outdoor chapel and it is an extremely moving service where attendees are in the garden paying tribute to veterans who lost their lives in Vietnam. I pay tribute to all those who are involved in both those services.
Interestingly, Vietnam Veterans Day falls on what was previously known as Long Tan Day. It was not until 1987 that then Prime Minister Hawke stated that it should be known as Vietnam Veterans Day. Long Tan was one of the major battles that Australian troops were involved in where 18 men lost their lives and 24 were wounded. It had the largest number of casualties of any one operation during our involvement in the Vietnam War between 1962 and 1973. It had always been called Long Tan Day and the two are now synonymous. I feel that it is really fitting that it should be known as Vietnam Veterans Day.
Further, in commemorating the contribution that Australians made in Vietnam, I think of all the aspects around that because there were a number of aspects that we as a nation needed to take on board. Doing that on the day of the Long Tan battle in 1966 is very appropriate. I think it is very important that we as a parliament are always mindful of the Vietnam War and all the issues that arose out of it.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes continuing concerns in relation to the practice of harvesting organs from prisoners in the People's Republic of China, in addition to allegations of an illegal organ harvesting trade in other parts of Asia and in Europe; and
(2) calls on the government to:
(a) acknowledge the illegal trade of organs as a significant health policy and human rights issue in the international community and publicly condemn organ transplant abuses;
(b) engage in international dialogue, in a human rights context, relating to the harvesting of organs, ensuring cooperation to protect the poorest and most vulnerable groups from organ transplant tourism and the illegal sale of tissues and organs through the development of tools to ensure traceability of organs;
(c) consider federal measures and encourage Australian states and territories to consider measures to ensure that trafficking of human organs is addressed;
(d) urge the Chinese government to immediately cease the practice of harvesting organs from prisoners;
(e) support and encourage universal adoption and implementation of the WHO Guiding Principles on Human Organ Transplantation regarding protection of donors, transparency and the implementation of quality systems including vigilance and traceability; and
(f) urge the Chinese government to increase efforts to set up an organised and efficient national register of organ donation and distribution, and to cooperate with requests from the United Nations Special Rapporteurs and other international bodies and governments for investigations into the system.
Many Westerners, including Australians, are travelling overseas to have organ transplants rather than waiting years for organs to become available at home. While this is a potentially dangerous operation for the organ recipient it is almost always fatal for the donor, if they are in China. As we heard on the SBS Dateline program, 'Human harvest' last year, at least 10,000 organs are transplanted in China every year yet there is only a tiny number of people on the official donor register.
Today, China is ranked second in the world for procedures of this kind, and there is no question that organs are overwhelmingly sourced from executed prisoners or from live prisoners of conscience who are held for their beliefs or minority status. As far back as 1994, Human Rights Watch made the following report:
A growing worldwide trade in human organs, whereby the poor in countries such as India and Brazil are induced to sell their body parts to meet the transplant needs of high-paying customers, largely from the developed countries, has been widely condemned because of its financially exploitative nature and its abuse of medical ethics. China's extensive use of executed prisoners as a source of organs for medical transplantation purposes, a problem which so far has received somewhat less international attention, likewise creates serious cause for concern on a number of basic human rights grounds.
The consent of prisoners to use their organs after death, although required by law, appears rarely to be sought.
… … …
According to Chinese legal authorities, some executions are even deliberately mishandled to ensure that the prisoners are not yet dead when their organs are removed.
The lack of adequate judicial safeguards in China, coupled with the existence of government directives allowing political offenders and other nonviolent criminals to be sentenced to death, virtually guarantee that a significant number of wrongful executions will take place. Some of those unfairly sentenced may be unwitting organ donors.
The use of condemned prisoners' organs involves members of the medical profession in the execution process in violation of international standards of medical ethics. Chinese doctors participate in pre-execution medical tests, matching of donors with recipients and scheduling of operations, often on a first-paid, first-served basis. Surgeons are commonly present at execution grounds to perform on-site removal of vital organs.
… … …
The practice of using executed prisoners' organs for transplant purposes creates an undesirable incentive for the authorities to refrain from either abolishing capital punishment or reducing the scope of its application.
The practice in China of taking organs from people without consent, including from death-row inmates and political prisoners, and of effectively allowing a system of organ harvesting to operate without check is truly one of the modern horrors. Despite official commitments in recent times to stamp out this abhorrent abuse there is ongoing evidence and testimony that the state-sanctioned harvesting of human organs continues, often in circumstances that constitute torture.
Whistleblower accounts of these cruel practices are horrific. In a 2006 public rally held in Washington DC, one whistleblower gave an account of a secret death camp called Sujiatun, which is apparently one of 36 such camps within China: 'There is a hidden facility in Sujiatun that held a large number of Falun Gong practitioners. During their detention their corneas and internal organs, including bone marrow, were being harvested while they were still alive. Even their hair was used to make wigs, and their skin and fat were being traded. Their remains were finally thrown into a crematory, which left no trace.' An independent investigation conducted by a former Canadian Secretary of State, David Kilgour, and Winnipeg human rights lawyer, David Matas—both nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for their work in this area—confirmed the practice in their 2006 report.
China, after many years of denying the practice, has in recent years declared it would no longer harvest organs from executed prisoners. However, transplant rates are continuing to grow without a corresponding growth in legitimate organ donation rates.
In December 2013 the European parliament expressed deep concern over persistent and credible reports of systematic state sanctioned organ harvesting from non-consenting prisoners of conscience, including Falun Gong practitioners, and called on the Chinese government to end the practice of organ harvesting from prisoners immediately. The Canadian parliament and US congress have also condemned the unconscionable practice. The United Nations special rapporteurs have called on the Chinese government to account for the sources of organs used in transplant practices, and the World Medical Association and American Society of Transplantation have called for sanctions on Chinese medical authorities.
Numerous countries have moved to prohibit their citizens from travelling to China for organ transplants. The Australian government has endorsed the non-binding 2008 Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism, and in 2013 the Senate passed a motion urging the government to oppose the unethical practice of organ harvesting in China.
China is a long way from establishing an ethical, legal, transparent and properly regulated organ donation and transplant system. As a self-proclaimed respecter of human rights, it is incumbent on Australia to do everything possible through legislation, international diplomacy and education to ensure that the measures referred to in the motion are taken and that illegal organ harvesting is brought to an end.
Is there a seconder?
Yes, I second it.
You reserve your right to speak?
I do.
I am pleased to rise and support the motion from the member for Fremantle. I congratulate her on her interest in this area and for speaking up against the practice of forced organ harvesting and the trafficking of organs worldwide. I note that the World Health Organization estimates that currently 10 per cent of all transplants worldwide are the result of trafficking.
But there are just a few comments that I think need to be made in relation to point (f), where the member for Fremantle's motion 'urges the Chinese government to increase efforts to set up an organised and efficient national register of organ donation and distribution and to cooperate with requests from the United Nations special rapporteurs and other international bodies and governments for investigations into the system'. That is correct, but if we are going to lecture the Chinese government about how they should set up an organ donation scheme we need to make sure that we have our own house in order. Sadly, our organ donation programs here in Australia are far below where they should be.
Mr Deputy Speaker, here are some numbers to give you an idea of how we compare internationally. Currently we are ranked only 22nd in the world by rates of organ donations. We are a long way back, at 22nd. The best way to measure organ donation rates in a country is by deceased donors per million of population. The leading nation in the world is Spain, which in 2014 had 35.7 deceased donors per million. But Australia, down at 22nd position, only had 16 deceased donors per million of population. That is less than half.
When we are doing so poorly, it is very difficult for us to come in here and lecture China. In fact, because our rate of donation is so low, it is estimated that it is costing Australia around 55 deaths every year, with over 1,000 other people suffering on dialysis, suffering through waiting on the organ donation list. We should be doing and we could be doing so much better. We need to make it a national priority to lift, and lift dramatically, the rate of organ donation in Australia.
I would suggest that it is a moral requirement of all Australians to donate their organs. If we are to live here in Australia and enjoy the benefits of the sacrifices of past generations, if we are to enjoy all the benefits of scientific discovery, modern hospitals and medical services that we have available to us, we have a moral obligation to donate our organs rather than see them being cremated or buried with us.
The other issue we have is that obviously something has gone dramatically wrong with our organ donation program. We know that $240 million has been spent since 2008 on the implementation of a program to lift our organ donation rates to try and get them somewhere up around world's best practice, and yet we are still less than half of where the nation of Spain is. What that means is that 1,200 Australians every year are missing out on a transplant because our rate of organ donation is so low as compared with Spain.
I congratulate the member for Fremantle. I concur with the comments in her motions, and the intent of her motions. But before we can lecture any nation in the world we must get our own house in order when it comes to organ donations.
The existence of illegal organ harvesting in the 21st century is a stain on humanity and it ought to be on the conscience of those who are committing those heinous acts. The human body and the organs within it should be sacred. Every person should have the right to say what can or cannot be done with their own body.
When we talk about organ harvesting and illegal organ trading, however, we are not talking about a handful of individual criminals violating people's bodies. What goes on—for instance, in parts of China, as the member for Fremantle outlined—appears to be the systematic violation of the bodies of thousands of people, particularly political prisoners, each and every year. Courageous journalists, lawyers and activists—people like David Matas from Canada—have documented these shameful acts taking place in state-run civilian and military hospitals. I must say when I first heard about these allegations I did not believe them to be true until I spent a great deal of time going into, and also hearing, some of the extraordinary admissions from people. I have to say it again: state run civilian and military hospitals were the places where these were practiced.
The University of Sydney is thinking at the moment of reappointing Huang Jiefu. He was on the university's faculty until it was exposed he had personally been involved in some of these forced organ transplants. Professor Jeremy Chapman of the university is one of his chief defenders. He wrote to him and said in Sunday's Sun Herald:
We have pressed Jiefu on what he did with respect to personal executed-prisoner surgery – the answer was once or twice in the 1990s but none since then …
Having such a person on the faculty at the University of Sydney is particularly odd for a medical faculty.
Organ harvesting is not confined to China. Black markets have arisen in other parts of Asia, not to mention Europe and in particular parts of the Balkans. If greed is the root of all evil though, nowhere is it more evident than in China's billion dollar organ-on-demand industry. The Beijing Red Cross reported in 2011 that there were only 37 people registered as organ donors and yet somehow 10,000 procedures take place in China each and every year. It is believed to be the second-highest rate of organ transplants in the world and perhaps unsurprisingly provides by far the shortest wait time for transplant recipients. Put simply, the numbers do not stack up.
I do note that China has made an effort. The China Daily reports that a voluntary organ donation system has been set up since the compulsory system was allegedly banned in January 2015. As of November last year, 4,384 voluntary organ donors, who donated 14,721 organs, had come into being. China began a voluntary organ donation program in 2010 and it has promoted the practice since 2013, but 10,000 versus even those 5,000 donors does not add up.
The removal of a living person's organs without consent is a fundamental abuse of their body and their rights as an individual. It is as simple as that. From what we can tell, the practice of organ harvesting in China seems to be restricted to political prisoners and, as such, I see this as far more than a health policy issue—I see this as more than a handful of individual criminals profiting from the illegal trade. This is something more—it is state-sponsored human rights abuse of political enemies in the cruellest way.
Some efforts have already been made on the international stage. Most recently, the World Health Organization adopted a resolution in 2010 endorsing the updated Guiding Principles on Human Cell, Tissue and Organ Transplantation. Amongst other things, those principles prohibit the sale of human organs without the written consent of the donors. China, in theory, says it subscribes to and abides by these principles. The issue I have, however, is not that the international law lacks sufficient rules but that national governments are not vocal enough in backing them up.
The Chinese government, as I said, claims to have ended these practices in January 2015. The rather insipid Australia-China dialogue on human rights should take this up, and perhaps some of the practices of voluntary organ donation in advanced countries should be suggested to the Chinese. In this pursuit we cannot quit. We must not quit. As the famous General MacArthur once said:
Age wrinkles the body. Quitting wrinkles the soul.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to speak on the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015.
More than 20 countries have now legislated for marriage equality. These are countries that are a lot like Australia—New Zealand, the UK, the United States, Canada, France, Argentina—countries that we find that we have a lot in common with. The question, of course, is: why not Australia? A lot of people thought when the member for Wentworth became the Prime Minister that his stated support for marriage equality would lead us quickly to a position where Australia could join these more than 20 other countries that have legislated for marriage equality. But the new Prime Minister dashed the hopes of his constituents and the many Australians who are supporters of marriage equality by kicking this issue off into the never-never by adopting the policies of the previous prime minister to delay this decision into some time into the future.
We know that this plebiscite that the government has signed up to is a $160 million waste of money. I am certain that members on this side could think of many things that they would rather spend $160 million of taxpayers' money on than a divisive plebiscite. But what is even worse about this plebiscite is that we now have members of the government who are saying that even if the plebiscite is overwhelmingly in favour of marriage equality they will not be bound by it. What is the point of a plebiscite that will not even guide members of the government—people like Senator Cory Bernardi, who said he will not be bound by it, and Senators Bridget McKenzie and Eric Abetz—who say that they will not be bound by a plebiscite?
A government member: Will you be bound by it?
It is not our policy. We think it is stupid.
A government member: Will you be bound by it?
We think that there should be legislation in the parliament within the first 100 days.
An opposition member: When are you going to plebiscite the GST?
Labor policy is for legislation within the parliament in the first 100 days. If these people opposite were serious about how this is a great expression of democracy then they would have a plebiscite on the GST. They would have a plebiscite on the cuts to health and education. They would have a plebiscite on all of the policies that they have introduced that hit ordinary Australians in their hip pockets. But they will not have a plebiscite on that.
I will say something else: this issue is about love and family. John Challis, a constituent of mine who was briefly in the member for Wentworth's electorate and is now again a constituent of mine, has been campaigning for equality for same-sex couples for his whole life. He is 87 years old, and what does he say about the 50 wonderful years he has had with his partner? He says, 'I will not live forever.' He wants to marry the love of his life before he dies. He should have that right.
What do you say to the father, Mick Kyriacou, who wrote to the Prime Minister about his daughter's marriage? He said, 'We celebrated the marriage of my daughter and her partner on Saturday in Sydney, then they had to fly to New Zealand to be officially married.' He also said: 'As a father, my love is unconditional, unwavering and strong. My daughter and many others have a right to be loved, respected and hold the same legal rights as every other Australian.' He is a coalminer from Wollongong. He understands that this is about love and family and the respect that people have for one another.
And what do you say to the fact that we have not had plebiscites on removing discrimination against any other group in society? Did we have a plebiscite on removing discrimination against women when we introduced the Sex Discrimination Act? Did we have a plebiscite on the removal of racial discrimination against people of different ethnicities in this country? Of course we did not need that, because we know, as an advanced country, that every step we take towards the removal of discrimination emboldens us as a nation. It makes us stand prouder because we are doing the right thing. We do not need a plebiscite to tell us it is the right thing to do to remove this last piece of discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians.
We removed 86 discriminatory laws when Labor was last in government. This is the last piece of outstanding discrimination that is legal against same sex couples in this country. We know that across Australia there are families, couples, same-sex couples who have children, and their children are being told that their family is second-rate, not as good as the other kids at school. They do not deserve to get that message, and young Australians do not deserve a damaging plebiscite that will tell them there is something wrong with being gay or lesbian.
Debate adjourned.
Proceedings suspended from 13 : 11 to 16 : 00
It has been a relief to hear the news this weekend that Jocelyn Elliott, who was kidnapped in Burkina Faso and taken to Mali by an Al-Qaeda-linked group three weeks ago alongside her husband, Dr Ken Elliott, has been released. However, it is a matter of grave concern that Dr Elliott remains captive to the group which, on the same day as the abduction, killed 28 people in an attack on a hotel and restaurant in the capital, Ouagadougou. Dr Ken and Jocelyn Elliott are aged in their eighties. Originally from Perth, the Elliotts have spent the last 43 years in northern Burkina Faso in West Africa building and running a hospital entirely from their own resources and with donations. Theirs is the only hospital for the two million people in the area.
Dr Elliot has been performing 150 surgeries per month. Right now there are patients in the Elliotts' hospital in Djibo with no doctor to manage their treatment. The Elliotts are beloved in their local community and the statement by the kidnapper group accompanying Jocelyn Elliott's release noted the strong community pressure on behalf of the Elliotts. The Australian government has expressed thanks to the governments of Burkina Faso and Niger for their efforts in securing Jocelyn Elliott's release. It is to be hoped that Dr Ken Elliott will also be freed in the near future.
The irony is that if it were not for the kidnappings, this longstanding diligent humanitarian work carried out by these loving people in a poverty-stricken part of the world would not have been widely known in their home country. I am sure that everyone in this place would join me in paying tribute to the Elliotts as quiet heroes for humanity.
There is nothing quite like a regional country show. I love helping to sell tickets on the gate, or working in the kitchen or sponsoring the youth talent quests. I take this opportunity to thank our amazing committee members for our five local shows, three held so far this year and two still to come. For Nowra show; thank you Wendy Woodward, Robyn Nelson, Faye Suffolk, Janice Hughes, Peter Cowman, Ron McKinnon, Kevin Carter, Jodie Bennett, Allan Garratt, Ringmaster John Bennett, the 60 other committee members and more than 200 volunteers. For the Milton show, we thank Roy Johnston, Mick Scott, Graham White, Diane L'Estrange, Ken Lesley, Mick Scott, the committee of 45 people and heaps of volunteers, and also the ladies auxiliary, coordinated by Elaine Gumley and Barbara Anderson. To the members of the Kangaroo Valley show, happening this weekend, thank you Harry Sharman, Suzanne Greer, Keith Wearne, Cathy Gorman, Maree Witton, Paul Williams, Lorraine Mairinger, Irene Dunn, Rodger Arnold, David Kent, Laurie Barton, Jan McGregor, and Johnny Smart.
From Kiama show we thank Michael Brennan, David Young, Greg Chittick, Ron Gregory, Vic East, Sue Granger-Holcombe, their committee members and local volunteers . For the Berry show, thank you Peter Hands, Jim Beiler, Bill Seelis, Peter Harris, Paul Evert and the ladies auxiliary and Marelle Wright, as well as the 75 committee members and the 389 volunteers who helped on the day. There is nothing like watching the showjumping and looking at the jams, the chutneys, the flowers—everything. Even if it is raining, you walk in four inches of mud but it is absolutely fabulous. I appreciate the opportunity to extol the virtues of the work these people do, showcasing agriculture in our region.
I rise to raise my concerns about the increases in violence in our hospitals. I know in my area of the North Coast of New South Wales there is a desperate need for increased security because of this. Recently there have been calls for an immediate security boost at Tweed Hospital after claims of violent attacks against staff by drug and alcohol fuelled patients. They have sharply increased in the last six months. There were three code black lockdowns in the lead-up to Christmas at the hospital due to violence against staff and 500 acts of aggression in January alone, as was reported by the hospital's Health Services Union representative Jonathan Milman. This comes after the hospital's New South Wales Nurses and Midwives Association president, Sheila O'Mara, said that the facility was a 'battlefield', with over 2,000 acts of violence against staff last year. The Health Services Union has been calling for an increase in security staff at the hospital, and also for an increase in powers for those staff.
I note the recent announcement by the New South Wales health minister, Jillian Skinner, of a public hospital audit and also a roundtable, which was held today. It was very disappointing that the health minister did not attend that roundtable, and also there was a decision made to not invite the New South Wales police. As a former police officer myself, I find it appalling firstly that the minister did not show up but also that the police were not invited to this very important roundtable. Police certainly have seen first hand the impact of the increase in violence in our hospitals, and we certainly need to see a security boost in our hospitals in my region and right throughout the state due to the increases in violence we are seeing in our hospitals.
Whether you joined friends and fired up the barbecue on Australia Day listening to Triple J's Hottest 100, took the family to the beach or went to the T20 cricket match at Adelaide Oval, South Australia was certainly alive and well on 26 January. I was proud to celebrate Australia Day at events across Hindmarsh, including Australia Day at the Bay with the City of Holdfast Bay, and a number of citizenship ceremonies. Congratulations to all four councils in my electorate for organising successful citizenship ceremonies in our local community.
I would also like to congratulate all new Australian citizens and those who were recognised for Australia Day awards in Hindmarsh, including the City of Charles Sturt Citizen of the Year, Roger Drake, of Drake Foodland; Young Citizen of the Year, Thomas Hession; Community Event of the Year, West Beach Surf-Lifesaving Club, with their Pink Swim, raising money for breast cancer; and City of West Torrens Citizen of the Year, Lisa Hester; Young Citizen of the Year, James Harvey; Community Event of the Year, St Nicholas Church, George Street Festival—a fantastic Greek community festival; Anniversary Medal, Fraser Bell; Civic Award, Georgina Saunderson—whose family are good florists and Rotary members; Business Award, Vili Milisits; Environment Award, Netley Kindergarten; Community Group Award winners, Camden Community Centre and West Torrens Road Safety Group; and the West Torrens Community Service Awards, Elizabeth Georgocopoulos, Nemelita Christensen, Ursula Bertram, Bronwyn Clelland, John Pirakis, Gill Pirakis, Frank Violi—who is from the Thebarton Seniors and Pensioners and had a significant supporter group cheering him on for his award—Brenton Gill from Neighbourhood Watch, Coralie Netherwood and Heather Barry. Congratulations to you all.
Today I want to pay tribute to the Victorian Minister for Police and Corrections and the member for Williamstown in my electorate, Wade Noonan. I know Wade to be one of the most decent human beings you could meet—exactly the kind of person that you would want to serve in our parliaments or our government. Wade has today taken a leave of absence to deal with the trauma that he has had to confront as police minister in Victoria, being exposed to a constant stream of details about things that none of us want to have to deal with. I am really proud that Wade has taken leave to receive the support and assistance that he needs to deal with these issues. This exactly what we want all people in all workplaces in Australia to do when they confront issues like this. It shows great leadership for Wade to have done this in his position as a Victorian minister. As Victorian Police Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton said in thanking Wade for his enthusiastic support for the Victoria Police, 'We understand the impact of trauma and mental health. I wish him and his family well.'
Given this, we should all pause at this moment to reflect on the personal toll that work of this kind takes on many people in our society—our police, our firefighters, our emergency services personnel, the people working on family crisis violence lines, criminal lawyers and people on the front lines. I have seen their work and I marvel at the ability to cope with it. The message of today is clear: it is okay and it is important to seek help. I wish Wade and his family all the best in his recovery and I look forward to seeing him resuming his duties as a cabinet minister and member for Williamstown in due course. Wade has had to deal with some of the worst aspects of human nature as police minister, but I know that his presence in parliament and government is making the world a better place.
It may be only the start of the new parliamentary year, but there are already some great things happening in the electorate of Swan that need to be brought to the attention of the House. The recess is always a good time for making progress on local issues in the electorate, and the good news I am about to announce is thanks to the hard work of many people over the summer months.
Back in August I spoke about my disappointment at Airservices Australia's cancellation of a planned Perth night-time noise respite trial that was set to test the aircraft noise sharing of flightpaths in my electorate. I pledged to work to have the trial reintroduced, and we have been working behind the scenes to come up with a proposal acceptable to most parties, including, crucially, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. I pleased to be able to inform the House that it has been announced today that a night-time respite trial will proceed over the following dates: 15 February to 6 March; 7 March to 20 March; and 21 March to 10 April. I will have much more to say on this when a longer speaking opportunity arises, but I wanted to share this news with my constituents today.
Secondly, I can inform the House that, as part of the Swan-Canning River Recovery Program, the hydrocotyle management plan has been finalised. I have worked for many years towards eradicating the aquatic weed hydrocotyle from the Canning River, and this is now in sight with the completion of a 100-page blueprint. I thank the environment minister for continuing to back the Swan-Canning River Recovery Program and look forward to expanding on this in the near future, particularly with the local volunteer groups, who are working hard to eradicate the hydrocotyle weed.
The Turnbull government has been boasting about the rollout of its NBN. I am here today to report to it the abject failure of the NBN in the Shortland electorate. Since December last year we have discussed putting out the front of our office the sign 'NBN Complaints Office'. People have been complaining about having their services disconnected with no new service being connected and about appointment after appointment being cancelled. They have complained about the failure of the NBN and the provider to communicate with each other. Even worse, this government, the Turnbull government, promised people a fast NBN. I have news for those on the other side of the House: people in Shortland electorate signed up for downloads of 100 megabits an hour but are regularly getting only four and nine megabits. The government is duping the people of Australia. The Prime Minister was the communications minister when he promised Australians a very fast broadband. He has not delivered. He has failed the Australian people. That will put Australia back in the dark ages.
We have just celebrated Australia Day, and its significance to the nation continues to evolve and grow. This year, apart from the many towns and communities across Grey that recognised their local champions with citizen of the year awards, there was a strong recognition of significant contribution through the Australia Day honours list.
Awarded an AM for service to the mid-north-east region of the state, supporting primary medical emergency services in the Olary area was Jennifer Treloar. Community champions recognised with OAMs for their work were John Dinham from Port Lincoln, a long-term police officer, servant of the Freemasons and charity worker; Dean Dolling, resident of Port Broughton and former mayor of Barunga West council; John Holds from Whyalla, recognised for his service to pharmacy, Rotary and others, and often my local pharmacist, I must say; John Sandland from Peterborough, a recently retired councillor; Garry Smith from Tumby Bay for monitoring the marine radio frequency for many years; Peter Solomon from Port Augusta, a long-term councillor and community volunteer; and Maureen Wright from Burra, with a wide range of voluntary services in the community, including cartography. Kathryn van Schaik from Maitland was awarded the Public Service Medal for her work in early childhood services. 'Bluey' Devine from Crystal Brook was awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal. Bluey was very prominent in the battle to contain the Bangor fires of two years ago. Trevlyn Smith from Streaky Bay was awarded the Emergency Services Medal.
It is a privilege for me as their local member to have come to know most of these recipients personally, which is a reflection of the fact that they are so prominent in their communities. Well done to them!
On 18 December 2015, the Department of Veterans' Affairs commenced a community consultation about the delivery of in-person services at the Veterans Affairs Network office in Wodonga. Kevin Smith, vice-chair, and the staff of the Hume Veterans' Information Centre in Wodonga have asked me to urge the government, and particularly the minister, to keep this office open. Why? Elderly veterans and war widows find it very difficult to travel interstate to access the nearest myGov office in Albury, and they need personal assistance to use computer equipment and to access online services. The Wodonga office provides a unique on-base advisory service to the over 5,000 Australian Defence Force personnel undergoing training at the Wodonga military area in any given year.
While I acknowledge the whole-of-government approach to concentrating services and promoting digital access, I strongly urge the minister to continue to provide in-person service to our veterans and their families in our region. The Wodonga office is a vital resource that provides responsive and accessible support to ageing veterans and war widows. I call on the minister: please, listen to the concerns of the Wodonga veterans, and when you consider the future of all veterans affairs networks and the valuable service they provide please provide local service in a timely, accessible manner.
I rise to alert the House to all the wonderful nominees and recipients of citizen of the year awards that I attended in Port Macquarie on 26 January. We had many nominees and a very outstanding calibre of people. I was very pleased to see that Sheila Openshaw, who has worked for decades supporting people with mental illness, was named Citizen of the Year. Jeanette Rainbow, an absolute champion of her local community, was Senior Citizen of the Year. Megan Cooper, after all her work at school and getting awareness for those that are missing out, was Young Citizen of the Year. Several community groups were nominated and everyone was very pleased that the Community Group of the Year was the Beach to Beach committee that is rolling out an amazing cycling-walking path in the Camden Haven. There are so many people that do so much for the community.
In the Camden Haven on the weekend I attended a trivia night where thousands of dollars were raised in the name of multiple sclerosis. We saw the battle that Chris Olive and her family have had for many years in fighting this, unfortunately, common disease. I congratulate all of those that contributed to the fundraising efforts. It is such a wonderfully strong community in the Camden Haven.
To all Melburnians and Australians who today are celebrating the arrival of the Year of the Monkey, I say: happy lunar new year. Chuc mung nam moi. Kung hei fat choy. Xin nian kuai le. I extend my very best wishes to all Melburnians for a warm celebration and for time spent together with loved ones.
To the Vietnamese and Chinese communities in Melbourne, I say thank you for all that you have done for our city. People come from all over the world to visit Melbourne and part of the reason is its multicultural character and the contribution of the Chinese and Vietnamese communities. I cannot imagine Melbourne without the contribution of these communities.
My electorate is home to some of the biggest new year celebrations and festivals in Australia, including the Victoria Street festival, which goes from strength to strength thanks to the outstanding work of its organisers—RABA, the Richmond Asian Business Association. I was delighted to attend, yet again, that event this year. All of us can learn from you.
The Vietnamese and Chinese communities in my electorate of Melbourne are ones where people look after each other, particularly older people in the community. I have been inspired to see older members of the community living in public housing in Fitzroy, Richmond and Collingwood, coming together and sharing celebrations together and offering a welcome space for all.
I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the Australian Vietnamese Women's Association, which has gone from strength to strength, and also the Fitzroy Chinese Tenants Association. I say: happy lunar new year. My warmest wishes for a happy Year of the Monkey.
I recently had the great pleasure to make an announcement with the Hon. Greg Hunt of a further $200,000 for extended research into biological controls for wandering trad. For those who do not know, wandering trad is a very noxious weed which covers many creeks and properties throughout the Dandenong Ranges. It is also in Queensland and New South Wales. I was very proud that we funded phase 1 of this program. I must congratulate our fantastic scientists at the CSIRO—Dr Andy Sheppard and Dr Louise Morin—and also local people such as Glenn Brooks-McMillan from CWAD and Bill Incoll from the local landcare groups. This is fantastic news and I thank the minister very much for phase 2.
I visited the CSIRO to see firsthand the fantastic work they are doing there with a pathogen, which is really having a great impact on destroying the wandering trad. I look forward to phase 2 being completed. I understand that at La Trobe University, Melbourne, the scientists there are working on beetles, which also attack this weed. It is great news that phase 2 is being funded. The final phase, once we have completed all our research, will be the actual release. It will be fantastic news for the Dandenong Ranges.
In 1816, 17 children gathered in a small slab building located on a hill in Newcastle. Children of convicts, settlers, government officials and soldiers, all under the tutelage of convict Henry Wrensford, sat together in the Public Charity School to commence their formal education. These humble beginnings saw the start of what is now known as Newcastle East Public Hospital, the oldest continuously running school in Australia. Last weekend we celebrated the bicentenary of the school, paying tribute to the vital role of public schools in Australia over the past 200 years, their educators and students past and present.
The celebrations commenced with the unveiling of 17 impressive bronze sculptures created by artist Heather B Swann, symbolising the first 17 students of the school, and continued with the launch of this terrific book, To climb the hill: a people's history of Newcastle East Public School. It is a testament to the importance of education that this impressive volume—designed and typeset by competition winners Amelia Ross, Bella Raschke and Laura Cook—was launched in the school by former Prime Minister the Hon. Julia Gillard; a well-known champion of education worldwide.
I was pleased to also attend Saturday night's bicentennial dinner address by former High Court Justice the Hon. Michael Kirby, introduced by Julia Gillard—both proud products of the Australian public education system. As Justice Kirby noted, 'It is from public education that we learn the great lessons of egalitarian democracy.'
I am pleased to announce that, with the help of the Turnbull federal government, Lynwood Park in my electorate of Macarthur now has a $1.4 million synthetic turf field, which will be used by many football teams across Macarthur. This project was one of my election commitments and I am very proud to have been able to deliver it for the people of Macarthur. The new synthetic turf fields mean more games and increased facilities for the Macarthur Football Association, with its ever-growing number of teams and players. This $1.4 million project—jointly funded by Campbelltown City Council, the federal government and the Macarthur Football Association—will create enormous opportunities for the clubs and for football in Macarthur. I am very proud to be able to deliver this first-class sporting facility for our great community to enjoy.
This has been a great win for our community and one that I am personally very proud to have a played a small role in. I would like to thank Campbelltown City Council for supporting me on this project to make sure that the people of Macarthur have facilities of this high standard to call their own. I would also like to thank former chairman Rob Laws, general manager Glenn Armstrong and all the members of the Macarthur Football Association for playing an integral role in delivering this facility for the people of Macarthur. I would also like to acknowledge my two state colleagues Chris Patterson and Jai Rowell for their assistance with this project, as well as the former mayor, Paul Lake, and the current mayor, Paul Hawker. The new Lynwood Park synthetic field will make Macarthur the envy of Sydney.
Is was my great privilege to spend Australia Day at citizenship ceremonies at the Shire of Nillumbik and the City of Whittlesea in the Scullin electorate. At the outset, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of all those involved in setting up and in carrying out those ceremonies, which put the experience of new citizens very much at the centre of the festivities. They were great events to be part of and it was a great privilege to also be able to share some reflections of my own on the meaning of citizenship, particularly as it relates to the multicultural communities I am very proud to represent. I look forward also, having shared my reflections, to sharing the stories of the nearly-200 people who became Australians citizens on that day. I am very confident that those stories will enrich and enhance the fabric of diversity and multiculturalism of Melbourne's north. Two hundred people from around the world have decided to come and make their lives in Australia—that is something that we can be proud of. I look forward to their energies and talents being harnessed to the benefit of our community.
It was also a pleasure, at both these events, to acknowledge the work of the citizens of the year, acknowledged by their peers and by local government. I take this opportunity to congratulate all those who were nominated, as well as the award winners. I also take this opportunity in this place to acknowledge the work of Ellen Smiddy, who was, on that day, awarded a Member of the Order of Australia medal. Ellen has made an extraordinary contribution to her community and to the Australian Labor Party, and it is a great thing that our community has acknowledged that service. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak about the important initiatives in my electorate that are helping to reduce environmental damage and protect our green areas. Our commitment to the protection of the environment is embodied in our emissions reduction. The government's Emissions Reduction Fund is already cutting 47 million tonnes of pollution—four times the reduction under Labor's carbon tax. We are meeting Australia's 2020 targets and have set an ambitious target for 2030. Most prominent in my electorate of Brisbane are the successful Green Army programs, some of which were recently visited by the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt. Nothing is more satisfying than when policies address multiple issues, and the Green Army program is doing exactly that by cleaning up our local creeks and parks while providing very valuable employment and experience to young workers. The three Green Army projects that I promised for the Brisbane electorate are underway and almost complete. They are delivering better environmental outcomes for the communities in Alderley, Bardon and Stafford, as well as for Greater Brisbane.
Not only have the federal government invested $2 billion into land care for natural resource management; we have also committed to planting 20 million trees by 2020. We have also announced a $250 million fund under the government's Clean Energy Finance Corporation. All of these initiatives illustrate our commitment to the environment and are about a cleaner, more sustainable Australia.
Last December I had the honour of joining Laurie Maher from Coast Shelter to launch the Marie Lowndes Charitable Foundation. The foundation has been established, following a generous anonymous donation, as a memorial to acknowledge Marie Lowndes's contribution to the Central Coast community. Marie Lowndes was a director of nursing at Gosford Hospital, a staunch feminist and a leader in nursing education. The foundation will fund a new, coordinated, preventative and responsive program to address domestic violence on the Central Coast.
Coast Shelter is a major provider of crisis accommodation and services on the Central Coast. The foundation will form an umbrella overarching the domestic violence services Coast Shelter currently provides. Domestic violence is an ongoing concern in Dobell and on the Central Coast. The work undertaken through the Marie Lowndes Charitable Foundation—running women and children's refuges and temporary accommodation services, as well as providing education programs and other services—is making a real contribution to improving the lives of women and children on the Central Coast. The foundation is committed to providing practical support to victims of domestic violence, including operating a 12-seater bus to transport women to and from support groups. I commend Coast Shelter for establishing the Marie Lowndes Charitable Foundation and wholeheartedly support their outstanding work on behalf of victims of domestic violence.
Last Thursday, amid pomp and ceremony, trade ministers gathered in Auckland, New Zealand, to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. Despite the overgrown rhetoric about the TPP being wonderful for Australian trade, the TPP is more about increasing the power of large corporations than trade. If it really is good for the country, why is the government refusing to have the Productivity Commission conduct an independent assessment?
Last Wednesday, the parliamentary group on the TPP held a briefing with guest speakers Dr Pat Ranald of AFTINET; Michael Moore, the CEO of the Public Health Association; Ged Kearney, the president of the ACTU; and Danny Faddoul, a senior campaigner for GetUp! At the briefing, AFTINET presented a letter signed by 59 community organisations representing over two million Australians. GetUp! and SumOfUs presented a petition signed by 305,000 Australians. These documents outlined concerns about the impact of the TPP on the cost of medicines, on workers' rights and on environmental regulation. This petition called for assessments of the TPP's economic, health and environmental impacts before parliament votes on the legislation.
We know there is plenty of time for such independent assessments to be carried out, because the TPP has to overcome huge opposition in the US congress in a presidential election year. Canada's trade minister has said the signing in Auckland was purely ceremonial and that the Canadian people would need to have a say before they ratified it. It is time for the Turnbull government to respond to the legitimate concerns of Australians about the TPP, to ensure independent assessments are carried out before ratifying a deal that could have longstanding negative impacts on current and future generations of Australians. (Time expired)
One of the best features of my electorate of Deakin, and one that makes it such a great place to live, is the presence of a wide variety of people from very different cultural backgrounds. One of the great things about that is that last weekend we celebrated lunar new year. It is one of the largest festivals that we celebrate in the area. Over the weekend I was very pleased to join with literally tens of thousands of people to mark this occasion, and it was very special to know that we were celebrating that occasion with billions of people around the world.
This year, as has been noted by many others, marks the beginning of the Year of the Monkey. Very prophetically for this government, it is a time where agility, creativity, courage and determination will prevail—a great omen for our country this year. As I mentioned, in Melbourne's east celebrations took place in Box Hill, where thousands of local residents came to enjoy the festivities. It was wonderful for me and my team to be there all day to meet as many of them as possible.
I really enjoyed catching up with my good friends from the Chinese Women's Association of Victoria and the Chinese Association of Victoria, as well as from the Asian Business Association of Whitehorse—in particular, their president, Tom Zheng. They do such a great job in organising the event and making sure that residents of Deakin and, in fact, all the eastern suburbs get to celebrate lunar new year.
I wish everybody a very happy and prosperous Year of the Monkey.
Kung hei fat choi!
I would like to pay tribute to Kevin Smith, OAM, who was awarded his Order of Australia on Australia Day. Kevin Smith received his award for his services to netball, and I can say that it is a service that his whole family has been involved in—a service to Newcastle netball and to Lake Macquarie netball. Kevin has been totally dedicated to netball over the years.
In fact, the netball oval in Belmont is called the Molly Smith Netball Courts and it is named after his mother, Molly. If she were still alive she would be so proud that Kevin had been awarded the Order of Australia for his contribution to netball. He has been involved in administration, refereeing and every aspect of netball.
But although Kevin received his Order of Australia for his contribution to netball, his contribution is not limited to netball. He is very active in the Belmont Residents Group, and he is a person who is a champion for all things within the community.
Kevin, I say to you: thank you very much for your contribution to our community. I know that it has been well and truly appreciated by everyone. (Time expired)
When I first became a member and I was thinking about the strategic plan for Mallee, I put it under two phrases: 'building wealth by building opportunities and capacity' and 'building communities by building interaction'. The Stronger Communities Program has turned out to be exactly that.
We have had five announcements that I can talk about now that are really about building that community interaction. The Great Western Football Netball Club is going to receive $9,777 to upgrade its kitchen facilities. That club only got back on its feet about four years ago. The Irymple Junior Football Netball Club is going to get a barbecue trailer and some marquees—$5,500. For the golfers; the Warracknabeal Golf Club is going to get $6,136 so that when the golfers come in after playing their golf they can get in front of those heaters, or air conditioners in the summer.
It is not only for the sportsmen. For those who like to enjoy water sports, the Wooroonook Lakes Foreshore is going to get a fence—$13,795. This means that those who are playing at the lake can also be protected, so they do not go out and walk across the road—a potential danger to our children. And the Swan Hill District Agricultural and Pastoral Society is going to get $5,527 for some air conditioners and some photocopiers.
This is building communities, it is getting people together and it is something that is really special about the people who I represent—the people of the Wimmera and the Mallee.
I am sure you will have a lot of happy constituents!
Colleagues, North East Victoria is famous around the world for its brilliant wines, and another top-class winery from the area has been recognised for its excellent work. Congratulations to Pizzini Wines on winning the Tourism Wineries, Distilleries and Breweries Award at the Australian Tourism Awards held in Melbourne last Saturday. This was a very special night for the Pizzini family. To Katrina, Alfredo, Joel, Natalie, Nicole and Carlo and the entire team: congratulations on your great work! This latest recognition follows on from the RACV Tourism Wineries, Distilleries and Breweries Award last year.
This family-owned winery is based in the beautiful King Valley at Whitfield and specialises in a wide range of Italian wines. It has important roles in the valley as a family business, employer and tourist attraction, and it is heavily involved in helping promote the sector. The winery is much more than just a vineyard. There is marketing, running the cellar door, the popular cooking school and the winemaking crews that do a fantastic job.
I would particularly like to use this opportunity to thank the Pizzini winery and all the businesses and families of the King Valley for the work that they have done. I am proud to say today that I have nominated you, as a mobile phone blackspot, as one of my priority communities for improved services. I know that without good mobile phone coverage we cannot do business and grow tourism, so I am really looking forward to working with the government to get us really good mobile phone coverage. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Riverland and Mallee Vocational Awards hosted by the Rotary Club of Berri, which I was delighted to attend last Friday at Berri in my electorate of Barker. These awards are highly regarded locally. They are, in fact, nationally significant, as the awards are the largest of their kind in regional Australia. Before I congratulate the winners I want to commend all finalists on receiving a nomination for these esteemed awards.
This year's winners include: Jordan Owen, who was awarded the Building and Construction Industry Award; Nathan Burgess, who was awarded the Electrical Industry Award; and Ben Tanner, who was awarded the Engineering Industry Award. The hairdressing award was taken out by Sophie Butson. The Vocational Education Student of the Year was awarded to Matt Turnbull—no relation!—with Isabelle Swanbury and Mobaraka Mohammadi the runners-up.
The Australian School Based Trainee Award was won by Bethany Smith, with Christian Biele and Ellie Sracek as runners-up. The Australian School Based Apprentice of the Year went to Maria Chliaras, with Tahlia Price as the runner-up. The coveted Trainee of the Year was awarded to Stacey Geyer, with Caitlin Goodes the runner-up. The coveted Apprentice of the Year was awarded to Jarrad Hamood, who also took out the Automotive Industry Award.
I commend all these awardees on their efforts and thank the Rotary Club of Berri for hosting another successful Riverland and Mallee Vocational Awards.
I rise in parliament to applaud the churches and people of Melbourne who are offering asylum and protection to the babies, children and their families who are here and are being threatened with deportation to Nauru. I rise in parliament to support the staff at the Royal Children's Hospital in my electorate who are saying they will not put children who are here for medical treatment back in detention, because it may harm them. I rise to support all those people who are risking jail by speaking out and coming together and saying to the government something that it does not want to hear: that putting children, young babies and their families into prison—into detention—is abuse.
The government and Labor will say that somehow this kind of child abuse is necessary to stop deaths at sea. That is untrue. If the government was really concerned about stopping people risking their lives in desperate boat journeys, we would provide safer pathways and start taking people in real numbers out of the camps in Indonesia and Malaysia and bringing them here.
There is talk about the people-smugglers' business model. It is based on desperation. It is based on the desperation from spending years in the camp, knowing that you are a genuine refugee, but seeing countries like Australia not taking people. When that happens, these people risk their lives. The people of Australia, the churches, the staff at the hospital and those who are speaking out risking jail represent the true face of Australia that knows there is a better way than putting children into prison. (Time expired)
I have a dilemma. Many women—mostly women—in my electorate refuse to have their children immunised. They absolutely refuse. I said to them that I am prepared to represent their views in this parliament, which I did. I said, 'Why don't you ask the senators for an inquiry into your issues? They are not my views, but ask them.' So there was a Senate inquiry into the issue. There were 550 submissions. My dilemma is this: the woman in my office the other day said, 'I refuse to have my child immunised'. I said, 'when your child was sick the other day and had a viral infection, did you go to the doctor and ask for a script for a drug to attack that viral infection?', and she said, 'well of course I did.' I said, 'what is the difference between the doctor that gives you that advice as to the importance—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16 : 40 to 16:57
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I want to deal briefly with two elements of the natural disasters over the summer, but I begin by acknowledging the extraordinary work of all of our emergency services workers, whether volunteers, state employees or federal employees. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the amazing work of the Bureau of Meteorology, led by the Director of Meteorology, Rob Vertessy, and his team. They provide timely and critically important early warning information, whether it is in relation to flood or fire, rainfall patterns that might help with the breaking of drought or the forecasting, as they did very accurately, of a very significant El Nino effect. I remember a year ago they were forecasting the harsh El Nino which we were going to face and comparing it with two decades ago. Sadly, they were spot on—and that, of course, has led to other fires.
On that front, I spent Saturday morning at Crib Point with my six-year-old son, James, and many others, led by Emma Hopkins and Geoff Watson from the CFA in Crib Point, where there was a Crib Point community clean-up. Matty's Bar and Bistro put on food and drink for all of those who volunteered, but it was the Crib Point community that came out and helped clean up the town after the fires. They were honouring the work of the CFA, which protected the town from the 18 January fire.
I stood in the fire affected areas, and you could see how the fire ripped down the coast in a southerly direction towards the bulk of the town. The hard work of the CFA members not just from Crib Point but from throughout the area made a huge difference. A wind shift made a difference. But, as the fire then tore north, one house on Golden Point was lost, and I understand another house was badly affected. But the town came together to support those who suffered. The town also came together in great spirit to help clean up and to repair the damage.
We are now looking at Green Army teams possibly helping, as they have done in Queensland and New South Wales, with disaster recovery.
To Emma Hopkins, who put the day together; to Matty's Bar and Bistro; and to Geoff Watson and his team at the CFA: we are really proud of you. I am delighted to confirm to the House and to the community of Crib Point that the Commonwealth will give a peppercorn rent of a dollar a month, I believe—although I stand to be corrected—for the HMAS Cerberus land to provide a new base for a new purpose-built CFA headquarters for Crib Point. I think that is an appropriate contribution to ensuring that we have the best possible CFA resources.
Finally, I also want to note, at a broader, national level, that the Tasmanian fires have continued, although they have abated to a small degree. There are 77 fires remaining, with 28 currently uncontained or uncontrolled. The latest figures I have, although these may yet be updated, are that over 107,000 hectares have been burnt. This includes about 18½ thousand hectares, or just over 1.16 per cent, of the Tasmanian World Heritage area. So these are very serious fires. They have been very serious fires right from the outset.
I spoke with the Tasmanian Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage early on in the piece. We made sure that the Emergency Management Australia approach was activated. EMA was engaged right from the very earliest times. I am a little disappointed that some in this place have sought to politicise bushfires, because the people on the ground have done a fabulous job. They have been supported through access to the $14.8 million annually to increase national aerial firefighting capability, and the Prime Minister has already offered an additional $500,000 to extend aerial firefighting. In particular, 39 aircraft have been sourced from within Tasmania and around the country, with EMA right at the heart of that. That includes four fixed-wing aircraft, including large aerial tankers such as a Hercules C130, and 35 helicopters, which include water bombers, personnel carriers, reconnaissance and winches to assist with deployment in the most difficult areas. Some of these areas, of course, in the deep forest, are exceptionally hard to address, and protection of life and limb amongst our firefighters and our community must be the overwhelming priority.
But have no doubt: from the earliest times, at the first request, the Commonwealth has been assisting. We triggered a formal activation, but the truth is that, as I think one of the Tasmanian senators, who sought to make personal advance at the expense of the reputation of his local firefighters—and truly that is a despicable and rare occurrence in this place—knows, the Commonwealth and the firefighters have been deeply engaged from the outset, as they should have been. Both sides were onto this right from the outset. The Tasmanian firefighters and government could not have done more. Emergency Management Australia could not have done more. And the Bureau of Meteorology continues to inspire. I thank the House.
I rise to speak in condolence for John Bannon and in doing so would like to place on the record my gratitude to John for the hard work that he put in for both the state that I love, South Australia, and Australia. But also, of course, I would like to put on the record my sympathy for his family in this time of grief.
In reflecting on the life and death of John Bannon, it struck me that he was the first politician I was ever aware existed. John Bannon was elected to the South Australian parliament in the year of my birth and, from as early as I can remember knowing anything about politics, I knew that he was our Premier. I was four or five when he became our Premier, and he stayed there almost until the time I could vote myself.
I am not sure if it is still the case, but I think the young can have a very innocent view of politics. I did not know if John Bannon was Liberal or Labor back when I was a child and he was our Premier, and I certainly did not know if I was Liberal or Labor. But what I did know was that he was my leader. He was the leader of our state. He was the person who would be there reassuring us when there were times of trouble and, equally, he would be the one who would be leading the celebrations when there were exciting events in South Australia throughout all of those years.
I remember in very early primary school taking tests about our knowledge of Australia, with questions like: who is the Premier? I would always write: 'John Bannon'. And I was incredibly sad, personally, when his premiership came to an end. What I probably did not recognise at the time was that he was not just our leader when fronting up at public events; he was our leader in driving real reform and bringing about lasting change for South Australia. He made an incredible impact.
Many speakers in this debate have talked about the role he played in helping to establish the Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine in South Australia—something that was very hard going internally within the party, and which he played a hard but a critical role in. And the role John Bannon played in establishing the submarine building industry in South Australia and the Defence industry are both things which have been hugely significant and drivers of long-term economic growth and jobs.
The Hyatt and the Adelaide Casino complex was driven, in part, by John Bannon, and there was the conversion of part of the Adelaide railway station into the Adelaide Convention Centre. The electorate, and particularly the heart of the electorate, that I am so lucky to represent in this place was transformed by the contributions of John Bannon when he was Premier, and by the Bannon government. There was also the luring the Formula One Grand Prix to Adelaide and the really important work he undertook to put in place urban renewal programs to invigorate some of the declining inner suburbs of Adelaide. All of this was incredibly important, and there was much, much more achieved during the time that he served our state as Premier until, of course, the state bank collapse and the events that followed from that.
I later came across John Bannon when I was a student at Flinders University. I was a major in history, and I did not know what I wanted to do for a job at that point. People said to me, 'Why are you studying history? Where is that going to get you?' I was always of the view that, if you studied something you were passionate about and that you were interested in, it could only lead to good things. And I was always reassured when I walked through the history department at Flinders University and I saw John Bannon's picture up on the wall, because after politics he followed through with his great passion for history and completed a PhD at my old university, Flinders University, and could often be seen there.
When I met John Bannon for the first time, though, it was not through politics and it was not through Flinders University; it was through sport. When I was elected as the member for Adelaide, I was lucky enough to take responsibility for an electorate which has at its heart the beautiful Adelaide Oval, and it is a very important part of serving my local community that I turn out for important community events—namely, the Adelaide test, when it was on. Following my election, I was privileged to receive an invitation from the South Australian Cricket Association's committee room to watch the Test from there. When I walked in there—I was a fairly young politician at the time—I thought that people were looking at me as if I were an alien. It was not until someone took me aside and was joking about how, 'We don't get many Labor folk in this room up here', that I did look around at lunch. There was John Bannon with his lovely wife Angela, and whether he knew it or not—I do not know whether he went out of his way, whether he perceived that I had been feeling like I was a little bit out of my comfort zone—but he automatically make me both feel welcome and feel like I belonged there. I know that from the very first meeting I went away reflecting on what a nice and decent man John Bannon is, and that is the thing I think I reflected upon after any time that I met him.
The evening I heard of John's death, I said to my husband, 'I don't think that there is a single time that I came across John Bannon and I didn't leave walking away reflecting that he was a truly decent human being, a truly good man'. Of course, he is someone who is respected by friends across the political spectrum, and from all different walks of life, and we saw that in many of the quotes and many of the people who have spoken publicly following John's death.
He is also someone who left a remarkable legacy, not just in politics, not just through his studies, but also through sport, and particularly his great love of cricket. I know, both through the South Australian Cricket Association and through Cricket Australia, that John worked tirelessly and was incredibly important in making sure that Cricket Australia sets up a pathway for Indigenous cricketers and ensures that this great summer sport that we love so much in Adelaide is inclusive of all Australians. And that is something that I know John was working very hard for right up until his death.
I also know that when you have a look at some of the things that were said about John Bannon, I note that of course there were many Labor people who have reflected on the critically important role that he played within our party. There were remarks from Bob Hawke, from Bill Shorten, from Mike Rann, from Jay Weatherill, from Julia Gillard and from many others within this parliament. But I would also like it noted he was also incredibly respected and many people on the other side of politics were very fond of him. I know former Liberal Premier John Olsen remarked:
John … was a sincere and genuine person with a commitment and belief in South Australia, [I think] his legacy should be seen in its totality - not just [in the context of] the State Bank…
He changed and modernised Labor, he faced up to challenges within his party.
All of that he did. I also know, and I do not think I would be putting words into the mouth of former Prime Minister John Howard, that John Howard and John Bannon could often be seen at the cricket together having a chat, enjoying their day out.
I would like to close by offering my sympathies to his family. I note that John's daughter, Victoria, stated:
For all of his love of tradition, he rejected the prejudices of the age …
… my Dad, the feminist, turned out to be one of the staunchest supporters in [my] life …
I know that Victoria, I know that particularly Angela and Dylan and Robyn, will all miss John very much. To them I offer my condolences, and to the parliament I offer the warmest memories of John Bannon.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to express the grievance of my community of Chisholm against the Turnbull Liberal government's inhumane treatment of asylum seekers, and the continuation of offshore detention of people fleeing persecution, including women and children and even newborn infants. Since the High Court's decision came down last week to uphold the right of the government to continue this immoral and inhumane practice, I have been inundated with messages from my community expressing their outrage and horror that 267 asylum seekers, including 37 babies, will very soon be returned to detention on Nauru. These 267 people were transferred to the Australian mainland to receive proper medical care and treatment, or in the case of our newborn infants their birth.
Among these individuals are people suffering cancer and terminal illnesses. There are children suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome and display the symptoms of anxiety and depression. All of the doctors and medical professionals who examine these people have made it abundantly clear that to return them to Nauru will have serious and detrimental impacts on their health.
Today in Senate estimates hearings, the head of the immigration department has made it clear that everyone will go back in due course, and the department, not doctors, will have the final say on who should be returned. This is a sentiment which fills me and many people throughout my community with utter despair. It is an indication of this government's stubborn refusal to consider the evidence and the very real health issues being faced by vulnerable people in their care.
In the same estimates hearing today, the immigration department's chief medical officer stated:
The scientific evidence is that detention affects the mental state of children: it’s deleterious. For that reason, wherever possible, children should not be in detention.
This is the professional medical advice being provided to Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, and his government by the chief medical officer of the immigration department, and it is clearly being ignored.
The Human Rights Commission has also released another report into the health and wellbeing of children in immigration detention, which again confirms the disturbing findings for The Forgotten Children report. The Forgotten Children report found that 30 per cent of the hundreds of children living in immigration detention were suffering from moderate to severe mental illness compared to two per cent of children in the Australian population. You only have to see the front page of The Age over the weekend and a picture of a child's drawing saying that they feared that they were going to kill themselves and make their parents very unhappy to know that this is not an exaggeration.
The UN rapporteur on torture has also found that the conditions in the Australian offshore detention facilities—tropical heat, poor access to water, inadequate education and medical care—amount to cruel treatment contrary to the torture conventions. These are devastating facts that cannot be denied but, again, facts that cannot actually be seen because of the utter secrecy around the detention centres on Nauru and Manus.
In its most recent report, the Human Rights Commissioner employed specialist paediatricians to interview and examine the 70 children, including 36 babies, who are currently being held in the Wickham Point detention facility in Darwin and face deportation back to Nauru after the High Court ruling. As a result of the medical findings, the Human Rights Commissioner has recommended that:
1. All children be immediately removed from immigration detention facilities to community detention in mainland Australia or granted a bridging visa.
2. Under no circumstances should any child detained on the mainland be returned to or transferred to Nauru.
3. Nauru is an inappropriate place for asylum seeking children to live, either in the detention centre or in the community
These recommendations are balanced on sound scientific medical advice. It is imperative these children and their families, as well as the 70 children and their families currently held on Nauru, are transferred out of detention and into the Australian community while their claims for asylum are being processed. This is the only humane response. It is the only genuine humane response to this enormous tragedy.
The Prime Minister on TV today said with a cool head but with a big heart: this issue would be resolved. It does not seem that there is much heart being given to this situation, as we speak today.
This is all about choice. This is the government's choice to traumatise and harm these children in detention. Under the Australian government's care—under our country's care—these children are being subjected to sexual abuse, intimidation and harm. These are children who have been raped.
We may have disputes about what is going on and what we are getting in the media because, again, no journalist has genuine access. I can tell you for certain: there are a couple of women who are amongst this group who have been taken to medical facilities in Australia, because they have been raped on the island. These are women. These are children. These are individuals in need of medical care, our care, and we are not giving it to them.
To date the government's response has been to attempt to silence any critics, threatening to jail doctors and medical professionals who speak out and to bully and intimidate anybody who raises legitimate human rights concerns of people seeking asylum. Enough is enough.
The government can choose right now to do what is right by these asylum seekers. The Prime Minister can immediately release all children and their families into the Australian community on the appropriate bridging visas. I am very proud of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, who has taken a leadership role in this debate and offered to cover the full cost of housing and care for the asylum seekers currently being held in Wickham Point, if the federal government agrees to send them to Victoria. In his letter, Premier Daniel Andrews states:
There are infants amongst this group who were born in this country. Sending them to Nauru will needlessly expose them to a life of physical and emotional trauma.
It's wrong. Medical professionals tell us this. Humanitarian agencies tell us this. Our values tell us this, too. Sending these children and their families to Nauru is not the Australian way.
… … …
Instead, I write to inform you that Victoria will accept full responsibility.
Elsewhere in the letter, he says:
A sense of compassion is not only in the best interests of these children and their families. It is also in the best interests of our status as a fair and decent nation.
I could not agree more.
We need to show compassion in this area. Many of my constituents have written pleading letters to me. Paul from Mont Albert wrote:
I am very unhappy that at present we have effectively legislation but no justice. It can never be just to hold up vulnerable people in detention with no hope. Please do not let any others allow you to think that it is. Please remember: we are all immigrants to this country and have no right to shut the doors to others who are vulnerable. Many Australian people have great hopes for this government. Please transcend the demands of your backbench. I urge you: please set out to find a bipartisan policy that will relieve us all of the horror of the current situation which makes Australians ashamed of their own government.
Tiffany from Box Hill wrote:
I understand there is no easy answer, but using human's lives as a disincentive for others thinking of making the journey to Australia does not treat the individual with the dignity they deserve as humans. I write to you so that you know what some people in your electorate feel. I feel deeply ashamed of the actions of our government on my behalf. I think this is unconscionable and, to be honest, I thought we had been through the worst of it with the end of the Abbott government.
Barney from Oakleigh wrote:
I wish to voice my deep concern that the government may well send 267 asylum seekers back to the hellhole which is the camps of Nauru. These are just people. They are trying to escape horrific circumstances in their home countries. To turn around and treat them like animals is so cruel and unfair it beggars belief. I know the issue of people smuggling is complex, but to treat these people in this way cannot be the only positive solution.
Reverend David Carter of the Uniting Church community at Koonung Heights, along with countless other churches in the Australian community, is prepared to offer sanctuary to these vulnerable and desperate people.
We have medical reports and eyewitness accounts of what these people are going through. The Journal of Medical Ethics reports:
In December 2014, a paediatric nurse and I travelled to Nauru to consult on children in detention. The conditions we witnessed typified those described by Goffman as occurring in institutions such as asylums, prisons and concentration camps, which he characterises as causing ‘mortification of the self’. Detainees lacked privacy. Families were housed in adjoining tents, and guards walk in without warning. Showers and toilets were up to 120 m away. At night, the long dark walk under the eyes of guards was enough to deter many women and children, who wet the bed, then put the mattress out to dry in the sun. Shower time was limited; guards would offer longer if women exposed themselves. There was constant bullying and humiliation. We also observed dehumanisation and denial of personhood: children and adults coming to the medical centre are referred to by their boat numbers.
It goes on and on about the inappropriate and inhumane treatment of these individuals.
Ninety academics wrote to all of us before Christmas. They said:
We are concerned about the serious deleterious effect this [detention] has on the physical and psychological welfare of children, who in effect are being punished in the absence of guilt on their part of any kind and outside the normal legal, child protection and welfare frameworks within which their situation should more properly and appropriately be addressed.
That is the situation. There is no way that these individuals would be treated like this in any other circumstances—and they should not be.
I, along with my community, urge the Prime Minister to heed the enormous amount of professional medical advice, the concerns from a community that is saying, 'Enough is enough', and the recommendations from individuals who know, who have been there, who have assessed these individuals. Please, on behalf of the Australian community, release these people from this inhumane and cruel detention. It has been 2½ years since this government came in—four years for some of these individuals. To send these individuals, these vulnerable people, back is not the solution. It will not affect people coming here, it will not assist in any way and it will damage our status in the wider community.
I am not a particularly superstitious man, but many who are superstitious believe that the number 13 is unlucky. I rise tonight to speak about a postcode the digits of which add to 13, a postcode that defies logic, and about why now is the time to undertake a full review of postcode allocation in this country.
The original legislation dates back to 1967. Since this time there has been a significant growth in the past 49 years, in particular, the extensive growth areas in the electorates of Maranoa, Groom, Ryan and Wright. To address this growth, it appears that a postcode coverage area has increased in geographic size and that very few postcodes have been created. Take the postcode of 4306: add those numbers up and you get 13—maybe I am superstitious—but this postcode remains one of the unluckiest Queensland postcodes for 57 separate localities. This postcode is shared by 57 localities and one Queensland city.
The rural region of Blackbutt-Benarkin in my electorate in South Burnett shares the 4306 postcode with suburbs of Ipswich city, some 140 kilometres away. For these two regions to share a postcode is bizarre, to say the least, because the two regions do not share a border: one is right up on the Great Dividing Range; and one is just outside the city of Brisbane. They are quite clearly two totally separate regions.
The 4306 postcode stretches from Brisbane in your seat, Madam Deputy Speaker Prentice, the electorate of Ryan, through to South Burnett in my electorate. It crosses four different electorates including Maranoa, Blair, Ryan and Wright. As I said, Australia Post governs postcodes. Australia Post maintains that a postcode is distributed for mail sorting purposes only and that it has no control over how postcode data is applied by other agencies, and this includes other government agencies. This is a contentious issue.
Due to the fact that Ipswich-Amberley 4306 is metropolitan and the Blackbutt-Benarkin region is rural, the erroneous allocation has resulted in a diverse and significant range of detrimental outcomes for the Blackbutt-Benarkin region—for example, insurance premiums are adversely affected. Blackbutt-Benarkin is lumped in with the woes of metropolitan cities—for instance, in relation to crime. Home, contents and motor vehicle insurances are based on postcodes. The rural Blackbutt region does not have the perceived threat risk on many levels associated with the Ipswich region. However, if you live in Blackbutt's neighbouring town of Yarraman, the circulation of insurance premiums mean that recently a Yarraman resident was quoted a premium $600 less than their Blackbutt neighbour. This is simply because Yarraman, 14 kilometres away from Blackbutt, does not share the 4306 postcode.
In efforts to obtain a better deal for Blackbutt-Benarkin residents and after consulting with Australia Post, I wrote to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Insurance Council of Australia and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, all of whom advised of their powerlessness to influence insurance companies or to effect change.
Blackbutt was also reported to have the highest drug related problem in the greater area. Again, this was based on postcodes. With Blackbutt having the same postcode as Ipswich, the Blackbutt region was unfairly maligned, because of the postcode. It does not have the perceived high-drug use issue in its area.
There have been a number of complaints from people across the Maranoa electorate relating to these issues of shared postcodes. On the same basis, the 4352 postcode, based in Toowoomba, is shared by 72 localities across Maranoa, Wright and Groom. The people in the far west of my electorate in Bedourie share a postcode with Boulia, which is some 200 kilometres away.
Other postcode issues relate to remote communities in the west of my electorate—for instance, the Longreach Regional Council has raised concern that the Yaraka 4702 postcode is related to Rockhampton that is 800 kilometres away—in fact, on the other side of the Great Dividing Range. It is 800 kilometres away from the postcode that is allocated to Yaraka. I understand Yaraka was allocated the 4702 postcode, because this small remote town received its mail by rail from Rockhampton many years ago—and I can assure you many years ago! Again, Yaraka and Rockhampton do not share a boundary and are two totally separate regions. Rockhampton is in a cyclone zone where insurance premiums are adjusted accordingly and it has no correlation to Yaraka residents.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a way to fix this. As you know and as I know, many of us that have this problem in our communities have talked about this. Many years ago Australia underwent a complete telephone number and area code review. Now is the time for a total review of mail delivery and our postcode system. I believe a review will ensure that communities will be provided with a unique and publicly recognised postcode or, at the very least, a postcode relevant to the community of interest, which is the fact that we are pushing. For the Blackbutt-Benarkin region, community consultation has indicated that the postcode should be changed from 4306 to 4616. 4616 is unallocated and is a logical choice because of the adjoining postcode of Nanango, which is 4615, and Yarraman on the other side, which is 4614. It is logical; it is simple.
Another issue relates to people working in rural areas in this region of Blackbutt-Benarkin who want to have a work visa extended. When the department look at their application they see the postcode. They say, 'You're not in a rural area. Your postcode does not indicate that you are in a rural area.' This is an issue that is hurting communities. It is hurting families. It impacts on business. I call on Australia Post to take this issue seriously rather than just push it under the table.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you and I would know, there is a new member on the board of Australia Post. I would hope that with the knowledge he may bring to the board he is able to move this issue forward to the benefit of so many communities that are impacted adversely because Australia Post have not done a review or reallocation in areas where the population of Australia has expanded and grown. I, like you and others in this House, will remain active in raising awareness of this issue. This postcode system is broken. It is adversely affecting communities in my electorate and many other electorates. It is now time for Australia Post to heed the voice of the people that they are going to make their money from. An area has an identity, which is the postcode. I call on Australia Post to now hear the voice, to expand the postcodes across Australia and do the complete review. When you look at our telephone numbers over the years, we have seen them expand over time as the population has increased. I pose the question: why not Australia Post? We all join on this one, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Indeed. I thank the member for Maranoa. I concur strongly with his comments. I call the honourable member for Wakefield.
It was a great pleasure to be outside today at the jobs embassy with members of the MUA and from the MV Portland. I certainly sympathise with them in the struggle for their jobs because in my home state of South Australia, of course, so many union members and non-union members are struggling with their jobs. We only need to look at the shipbuilding industry and construction in South Australia, and of course we only need to look at Holdens.
We all know there is going to be an election this year. The timing bounces around a bit. Obviously all the major parties and the minor parties are preselecting their candidates. I was interested to read an article in the Plains Producer. It is a very good paper, a paper that I have talked about before, which looks after the areas of Balaklava, Owen and Two Wells and places on the Adelaide Plains. We see that a Clare Valley woman, Kathleen Bourne, has stepped up for preselection for the Liberal Party. I would not normally comment on would-be preselection candidates, except for the fact that in comments to the Plains Producer they point out that Wakefield is the 'victim of significant deindustrialisation, with, for example, the impending closure of Holden'.
I was surprised to read that a preselection candidate for the Liberal Party would point out Holden. However, given the fact that the famous headline 'Hockey dares GM to leave' from 11 December 2013, you would be surprised that the people who perpetrated the deindustrialisation of the car industry in South Australia were out there saying that that was an issue for the electorate and that people should vote against the Labor Party, because of the coalition government's actions. It is an extraordinary proposition to put to the people of Wakefield.
But to add insult to injury, Ms Bourne then goes on to talk about the coalition's naval shipbuilding program and, given all of the issues that have been around submarines in my state, you almost fall over with the audacity of this sort of commentary about it. We now have a Liberal Party candidate in Wakefield who is running, in effect, against the government's policies and the consequences of government's policies. It is a truly extraordinary time.
I think candidates need to be aware of the importance of consistency in these debates—you cannot just waltz into a place, state your policy position then change it or blame other people for it. So it is interesting when we come to the Nick Xenophon Team candidate—I am sure I will get one eventually; it is in the pipeline. But I did see the The Advertiser on Saturday talked a bit about—I think the headline was 'Let's sink Nick'—the major parties attitudes to the Nick Xenophon Team running in the election. It talks about, in Labor's case, the campaign against cuts to penalty rates. I think we have a right to question the Nick Xenophon Team's policy on penalty rates. But I found it interesting, because when this was raised with Senator Xenophon—who I presume is the leader of the Nick Xenophon Team party—he said:
We are not anti-penalty rates for nurses, doctors, or any other shift worker, or any employee that works overtime or non-standard hours … The NXT position, modified after much consultation, is to support the independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission.
That confuses me a little, because on 27 January on ABC 891 in an interview in which I was participating on a panel, this issue came up, and I said:
We were just talking about penalty rates, Nick talks about letting the Fair Work Commission decide but as I understand it he introduced a Senate bill which would strip hospitality and retail workers, thousands of people in my electorate, of their penalty rates.
To which Senator Xenophon replied, 'And I made a mistake.' I then replied, 'So now you're retreating?' Then he said, 'No, I'm saying that when penalty rates went from 150 to 200 per cent that actually cost a lot of people their jobs,' to which I said that was 'nonsense.' So that was the position on 27 January this year.
If you go back in time to 1 October 2014 in the Senate Hansard on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 and Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2014, Senator Xenophon told the parliament:
I know my friends in the ALP and the Greens oppose me on this, but I think we need to have some flexibility on penalty rates for small businesses with 20 employees or fewer in the retail and hospitality industries.
Then in his Fair Work Amendment (Small Business – Penalty Rate Exemption) Bill 2012 on 16 February 2015—or that might have been one of the government's bills, he said:
I do not want my position on penalty rates to be misunderstood or misinterpreted, as it has been, particularly in the heat of an election campaign. I think that there is a special case, only for small businesses with 20 full-time equivalent employees or fewer and only in the hospitality and retail sectors, to look at a more flexible working arrangement where you do not have penalty rates of 175 or 200 per cent, which has been a job killer.
Further to that we have, in The Australian, Sarah Martin reporting on 7 September 2013: 'Xenophon flags support for cuts to penalty rates under Coalition.' It talks about his lead Senate candidate, Mr Griff, who is a former head of the state's retail association, who 'supported reduced penalty rates for small business in the retail or hospitality sectors'. Senator Xenophon said:
His view on penalty rates is the same as mine, which is small business are particularly vulnerable and there has to be greater flexibility.
The story then goes on to reiterate that he introduced legislation last year to scrap penalty rates for employers with fewer than 20 staff, and that it is still before the Senate. In that interview, Mr Griff described penalty rates as:
… "a noose" around the neck of small business.
And on and on it goes. Of course, there is Michelle Grattan's article in The Age of 14 August 2012, 'Penalty rates bills to put Coalition on the spot'. The tenor of this story seems to suggest that Senator Xenophon was putting pressure on the government to cut penalty rates. So I went to the Nick Xenophon Team website and had a look at what their policy is. It says:
Penalty rates are an integral part of the industrial relations system and any variance to rates and conditions must be dealt with by the appropriate workplace relations tribunal (currently Fair Work Commission). The unique challenges of small business should always be considered.
It gives two dot points:
•Fair Work Commission should remain the independent umpire
•Small business* and the potential for increased youth employment should always be considered in any determination of weekend penalty rates.
The asterisk indicates fewer than 20 employees.
So the question is: what exactly is the Nick Xenophon Team's position on penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers? On one hand they seem to be endorsing a straight cut and on the other they seem to be leaving it to the Fair Work Commission. And when you question the leader of the Nick Xenophon Team party—it sounds ridiculous, doesn't it, that you have to call him the leader. But anyway, there it is—you get this, 'I made a mistake'. In which case, which part of this policy is a mistake?
Now, if you vote for the Nick Xenophon Team will his candidates, when elected, always vote for Nick? This is in the 'frequently asked questions' part of the Nick Xenophon Team website—
An opposition member: The Palmer experience!
As my colleague points out—the Palmer experience! It says:
So yes, candidates and Nick will work as one team and their vote will be guided by the spelt out policy principles. On issues not covered in our policy statements, we’ll work together to achieve a fair, like minded consensus.
Which brings up the question: will Mr Griff, who is the lead candidate on the Senate ticket, be free to vote to cut penalty rates or will he not be free to cut penalty rates?
We all know that Senator Xenophon is very good at the 'spinathon'. He is out there in the news every single day on every single issue. But what voters in South Australia cannot afford is a spinathon on their penalty rates, or a spinathon on important public policy questions. These are things which must be crystal clear to the public of South Australia and, indeed, to the public around Australia in other states, because it is important. We have learnt this, as my colleague said, with other minor parties. We have learnt that this experiment can be very dangerous—that what people think they are voting for and what they actually get are two entirely different things.
I refer to a headline in the newspaper today—the Riverine Herald: 'Drowning in despair':
Water-starved farmer weeks from disaster.
It is a story from the Echuca area in the Victorian side of the river—Nanneela dairy farmer, John Brian, with his employee, Scott Thompson. The sadness of this story is that Scott Thompson is likely to lose his job on this dairy farm in the next few weeks. Behind the photo is bare soil and some very hungry-looking dairy cows.
But the tragedy is that this is not about drought. You might automatically imagine that I am talking about an extension of the Millennium Drought, the worst drought on record; that we have seen no rain, perhaps, and that this is just a failure of the irrigation system's dams. Perhaps they are empty. In fact, this is not a failure of climate at all; this is a shocking, reckless failure of policy and process. It is a failure of both state and federal government policy and process, beginning with the Labor government, which at the time was under the Greens' balance of power, when they brought into being the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—tragically, without any understanding of the need to have a balanced triple-bottom line.
It was always the objective of the Water Act that there be a balance between the environment, the community and the economy and that the environment certainly would have water returned to it where there was demonstrated overallocation of irrigation entitlements. We know that those did exist on some rivers in New South Wales in particular. It was not the farmers' fault; it was because, over generations, farmers had not activated their licences until an irrigation licence became a thing of value, and then it was discovered that, while those sleeper and dozer licences had lain idle on people's land titles, other allocations had been made. When all activated those entitlements, yes, there was some overallocation on some streams.
Tragically, though, in the middle of the worst drought on record, the then minister for the environment, Penny Wong, decided that it would be a very good thing, and a much cheaper way to get water for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, to put an over $50 million tender into the Murray-Darling Basin and call for farmers to sell their water to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. She was prepared to pay, and she did pay, over $2,000 per megalitre. She knew it would cost maybe $3,000 to $5,000 if she were to find that same water through environmental works and measures, so clearly it was a great deal for the Commonwealth.
It was a tragic deal for little communities and larger communities right through the Murray-Darling Basin. I now have schools like Invergordon, in my electorate, which had 60 students several years ago in a thriving community with some of the best soils and best climates in the Murray-Darling Basin. That school is down to six students. The Tatura Primary School once had three or four buses bringing farm children into that primary school every day. There are now a few kids from a few families on one bus. What has happened to all those farm families? What has happened to all of those jobs that went along with thriving food manufacturing in the great northern Victorian Goulburn Murray Irrigation District? The tragedy is that, of the 2,721 irrigation farms, 1,143 sold all or most of their water to the minister, Penny Wong, in the middle of the worst drought on record because the banks said: 'If you don't sell your water, we'll sell your farm. You owe us too much.'
At the time the water market was only $40 per megalitre. It was rational to imagine you could continue a farm using the temporary water market. Again, tragically, like any market situation, if you double and triple the number of buyers but halve the number of sellers or the volume of the product that is in the market, you have a massive increase in price. That is what we have seen, particularly since the market was uncapped, as well, in terms of who could buy that water. The Murray-Darling Basin temporary water market is the most fabulous little money earner now.
I have to say that one of the buyers making the best profit out of this is the Victorian government itself, which owns 75 gigalitres of what was once irrigators' water. They traded that water when there was a pipeline built from the Goulburn Murray system to Melbourne in the middle of that worst drought on record. The pipeline has been plugged through the massive community effort to put that right and to try to force Melbourne instead to use its desalination plant or to recycle its water or harvest its stormwater. That pipeline is now shut, but Melbourne Water still has 75 gigalitres a year. It cannot get it through the pipeline; the pipeline is closed, but it speculates with that water, pushing prices up and having a wonderful little earner for the Victorian government on the side.
The South Australian state government did the same with eight gigalitres it bought the other day—it thought secretly, but the whistle was blown on it. It flushes that water down the toilets of Adelaide while a person like dairy farmer John Brian has to sack his employees and watch his cattle starve.
This is absurd. I have now got a second phase of water removals from the GMID, the Goulburn Murray Irrigation District, which has been identified by its official mid-term review as unconscionable and as no value for money. Its secret business plan in fact never was required to take into account the impact of removal of another 204 gigalitres of water from the area. The farmer impact was ignored. The actual sustainability or viability of the irrigation system itself once all that water was removed was not part of the business case or the business plan. I cannot be sure of that, of course; I only know what the mid-term review has told me, because, while I have made a freedom-of-information request for a copy of this business plan, and I have asked both the Victorian state government and the Commonwealth, both have rejected my request for the business plan for the $1 billion of federal funding to fund the removal of this 204 gigalitres from my irrigators.
They are already down to just 900 gigalitres in the Goulburn-Murray irrigation system. It once had over 1,600 gigalitres. Goulburn-Murray Water itself, a state-owned, government authority with over 800 employees—a shocking, over-managed, top-heavy and incompetent mob—says that the system of irrigators' water entitlements of under 900 gigalitres is no longer viable for it to manage. With another 204 to go, you can see what I mean by the total collapse of the irrigation system, which has been the size of Tasmania—the biggest irrigation system in Australia. That is why I quite deliberately began my remarks by referring to a reckless failure of policy and process as a description of this state and federal government funded program.
It was Tony Burke who signed off the deal with the state government saying, 'We will give you $1 billion, and you give us 204 gigalitres of your water for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder.' Yes, we know CEWH cannot use what it has already in store. We know that it carries over more than the volume of Sydney Harbour each year while farmers are trapped in the worst drought on record. We had the tragedy of Deniliquin Rice Mill sacking 50 people two weeks ago. They could not grow the rice.
I cannot understand why the Victorian government will not accept that the mid-term review found that its business case was based on false assumptions. Those assumptions were that farmers actually wanted to go broke, leave their properties and have their channels pushed in. It is a funny thing that that was a false assumption! Blind Freddy could have told them, if they had asked an irrigator, that that was not what they wanted to see happen. That mid-term review also said that the program itself was incompetently handled; the claims of savings were not genuine savings; and the governance and communication between the parties meant that the risk was not communicated, understood, managed, elevated or actioned between parties in a timely manner. The whole thing is a complete disgrace.
It follows on from the first stage of the removal of water from irrigators, which was called the Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project, or NVIRP. That first stage received funding of $1 billion from the state government. It took 225 gigalitres out of the system. The ombudsman's review of stage 1 had it abolished for corruption, insider trading and incompetent action. Tragically for us who live in this region, most of the people who were seconded to work on NVIRP were simply then rolled back into GMW and continued with their hands on the steering wheel.
I believe this Goulburn-Murray Water managed, state-owned action, funded by the federal government must have a royal commission look at the incompetence, the scamming, that is going on: the plastic lining of channels, which are perfectly clay lined, as we speak; the building of infrastructure on channels that were dried off in the 1960s, but which earn points towards claiming that there has been a water saving, so the federal funds keep pouring into Victorian government coffers. This is a disgrace. I call for a royal commission. I believe that the Australian taxpayer deserves to know what shocking waste of their funds and moneys is occurring. But the tragedy, of course, is for the irrigators, the communities and the economies of northern Victoria and southern New South Wales.
Last week terror spread through a variety of Liberal Party state governments when they heard conjecture that the TAFE sector should be taken over by the Turnbull federal government. The relevant state minister in New South Wales, John Barilaro, commented:
I have little confidence that they could run a national vocational education and training sector …
… … …
Whenever you put tax dollars on the table, the cowboys rise to the surface.
Tasmanian minister Jeremy Rockliff was not to be outdone. He commented:
We do not support a Federal takeover of our VET or TasTAFE.
He commented that the system was 'doing a wonderful job'.
Whilst it was, according to federal sources, similar to the GST—a 'work in progress'—this did not allay the concerns of Liberal state governments. Of course, they have reason to be concerned. We see a situation now where 75 per cent of VET FEE-HELP assistance goes to private providers, predominantly with a 30 per cent profit margin. At the national level we see that 100,000 awarded qualifications have been withdrawn. However, I do not think that the federal government is without an argument with regard to its view of the performance of the New South Wales government. There we have seen a drop of 43,000 students in TAFE in 2014-15 and 83,000 from 2012 to 2015. We have witnessed a fee rise of 9.5 per cent above CPI, which led to a New South Wales government decision to freeze fees in 2016—a questionable late reaction to fees that are too high. One example of what is happening is in the early childhood sector, where $4,190 fees in 2014 have grown to $6,500. We have a situation where 4,600 teaching and support positions have disappeared. This is part of a situation which has seen VET fees nationally move from $700 million to $1.7 billion.
Conceding that the federal government has a point about state Liberal government performances, I return to the federal sphere. We see that in 2014, of the top 10 recipients of VET FEE-HELP loan funding, five private colleges have found their way into the media because of issues with either ASQA or the ACCC. They are ACTE Pty Ltd—Evocca—the Careers Australia education institute, the Australian Institute of Professional Education, Unique International College and Cornerstone Investment. They have VET FEE-HELP that ranges from $46 million to $250 million. This is typical of the proliferation of private sector involvement in this sphere, which has seen continual stories of illiterate, disabled and poor-English-speaking citizens of this country having their doors knocked upon. They are receiving cold calls advocating that they should sign up to these courses. They are given laptops and they are offered this and that. Most of these degrees do not lead to the outcomes that they are advised will occur—in one case, there was an offer of $2,000 in return for the person being part of a conspiracy to steal $25,000 from the federal government.
I do not want to see this manifest itself in areas like Macquarie Fields in my electorate, where currently 3,000 students participate in 100 different courses ranging from aged care, clothing application, disability, fitness, mental health et cetera. The renowned Macarthur Building Industry Skills Centre is also part of it. But I question how far away we are from its decline. On my Christmas holidays I was on the South Coast and I heard on the local radio station the fact that Daptowill close. It is being closed because the state government has deliberately made sure that the numbers of students and courses have been reduced so that they can then go to the public and say, 'Oh well, it's a failure. Let's sell it off.'
I want to also note that in a few of the debates on this subject last week we had a variety of government spokespeople saying that they have fixed up the crisis, that Senator Birmingham has acted and it is all the fault of the previous Labor government in going towards privatisation, deregulation and expansion of this VET assistance. I went back to the 2009 debate to see the massive criticism we must have received from the Liberal Party opposition at that time. If you believed what their speakers last week were saying, they alerted us to this, they made sure that we understood the wrongness of our ways and they made sure that they exposed all the possible weaknesses of our approach.
I note the member for Boothby has just walked in. It is worth recalling his comments at that time. He said, 'We supported broadening of the definition of students who would be able to receive VET FEE HELP.' He went on to say:
At this stage it applies specifically only to VET reform states or territories, and at present there is only one, and that is Victoria. There is provision there for other states, should they go down the same pathway that Victoria has gone down in the vocational education and training sector.
He also said:
This is a straightforward piece of legislation. We do support the extension of income-contingent loans, in this case to Victoria, and any other states or territories that go down that track.
The former minister for vocational education, the member for Goldstein, said when he introduced another bill in this policy area that the operation of the scheme will be monitored carefully and that he was of the general view that this introduction was a success. Finally, the member for Boothby commented on behalf of the opposition, 'As a consequence, this is a simple machinery bill, the result of some earlier pieces of legislation.' I do not think he was too critical of the road the Australian government was going down. I do not know whether these newer members of parliament are aware of that kind of history in this particular policy area. All of these dreadful, dire outcomes eventuated—I do not think the member for Boothby was too helpful in alerting us to what he already knew about this disaster.
I want to turn to one of the individual cases, Unique International College, which is in the suburb where I reside. It was exposed by Eryk Bagshaw in the Sydney Morning Herald on 29 October 2015. I want to put on the record some of the details of this specific example. They have a graduation rate of 2.4 per cent—in other words, one in every 40 students they sign up manages to graduate. The ACCC is seeking $57 million from this organisation, and in the past year they received $42 million from ASQA. They have nonexistent diplomas, and they have made $2,000 payments and given free laptops to students. Their campus is a single room above Silly Willy's $2 shop at 60 South Street, Granville. The website containing the article for the Sydney Morning Herald,shows a property owned by this company. It is a private house with a 12-car garage in Kenthurst. I suspect it might be the home of this Mr Amarjit Singh or Mr Amarjit Khela, the proprietor of the organisation. This house is many, many, many times larger than the entire campus of the company. Last year—at the time of the writing, so this would have been back in 2014—they had profits of $11 million. They have been deregistered, but I understand it is under appeal.
This is typical of what Michael Bachelard described on 6 September 2015 as 'the biggest get-rich quick scheme in Australia'. He therein spoke of call centres, door to door knocking, aggregations et cetera. I gather that some of the companies he examined have moved from giving away laptops to allegedly now only lending them to people who joined. A major person cited in that article had said on record that he had to 'cross the boundary' in this area. He said, 'As long as I don't get a complaint in my ear.' He said to the people working for this company enticing people to sign up for these VET-HELP offers that they could go as far as they wanted as long as he did not hear any complaints back. It has been articulated. They target the illiterate, the unemployed, people in housing department properties, people with minimal English. As I say, it is a matter of grave concern. I understand the state government is concerned, along with the federal government.
I rise to speak and reflect on some of the commentary that has been made, tragically, about the fires that have occurred in Tasmania over the last month—thankfully, we have had some rain since then—particularly the calls from Greens senator Nick McKim, with echoes from some of his cohort, like Jeff Law from the Conservation Trust, and the voice of Vica Bayley, who is the Campaign Manager for the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, for an inquiry into the Tasmania Fire Service and, in turn, the Tasmanian government and in, in turn, interestingly enough, the federal government, and what responsibility they have in respect of the way that those fires in the Tasmanian wilderness World Heritage area were managed. I note also the comments in recent days by the Tasmania Fire Service chief Gavin Freeman. I welcome the fact that he, in the cold, hard light of day, has said, 'Let's not over-egg this; let's not over-reach here. Let's make sure. If need be, we will go through, but let's make sure we do the job that is required first of all, and that is to put out the fires.'
I place on the record that during that terrible week or so I had briefings from the Tasmanian Fire Service and I saw competent, well-resourced people supported by volunteers in local communities who were doing an excellent job and that there were the available resources, as required, from other state fire services and from overseas.
The Commonwealth government does not have any firefighting equipment but it has access to a whole range of aircraft and personnel through the state departments who were mobilised as and when the Tasmanian Fire Service saw fit.
Senator McKim and many of his colleagues are pointing to climate change. It is quite possible. Let's say that they are right and that the effects of climate change have exacerbated the impact of the fires in Tasmania over the last month or so. The question then would be: what are we going to do about it? I believe as do others—locking up Tasmania, remembering that half of Tasmania is either Wilderness World Heritage Area, national parks or formal reserves of some sort, so this is the question.
Indeed, the media has got on board. I note an article by Rosita Gallasch from The Examiner on 7 February titled 'Tourism chances going up in smoke' and that little was done at a state and federal level. This is the sort of reporting that leaves many Tasmanians wondering what is going on. It was quite frightening to see that Rosita Gallasch refers to the fact that there is less than two per cent, under 14,000 hectares, of ancient rainforest. Most of this area occurred in light sclerophyll forests that have been working forests for many years until they were locked up in recent times. They were working eucalyptus forests that, once they got onto the plateau, were in alpine areas. It would be a tragedy, if the wonderful pencil pines and King Billy pines in the alpine areas of my state were damaged by fire, but to suggest they were in rainforests, again, is over-egging the omelette.
In order to get a perspective, we need to look and learn from what history can tell us about our state and managing the landscape in Tasmania. Scientists tell us that it is quite likely that, if the state had not been inhabited by humans for the tens of thousands of years that has been the case, a lot of Tasmania's landmass would be covered in rainforest. This is not the case today. Why? It is because of the way Aboriginal tribes managed the land.
Aboriginal tribes lived here in harmony with the landscape for tens of thousands of years. They did not have dangerous, damaging wildfires. How did they do it? Is there anything to be learned from their practices? This is the question that I pose tonight. Scientists believe that when humans first came to Tasmania, as occurred across the whole of Australia and in other countries such as New Zealand, they brought and they used fire, resulting across much of the landscape in a narrower range of biodiversity than had previously existed. The species that remained comprised those who could tolerate or thrive on fire, and of course eucalypts are the standing example. So strong was the use of fire that in 1800 there was less forest in Tasmania than there was in 1860. So strong was the practice of using fire by the Tasmanian Aborigines that, even as tragically they were being hunted down in the state's north-east in those times, they were still lighting fires. Their fires effectively gave away their location, and the last of the Tasmanian Aborigines who lived on the island were rounded up in what was a terrible history.
Professor Bill Gammage has studied the way Australia was being managed when white settlers first arrived. His research led him to write in his book, The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia, thatnearly the whole of the Australian landmass was actively managed primarily by using fire. If his research is correct, this is of fundamental importance to us and our environment, because it means that simply leaving areas of natural landscape unmanaged will not work.
Here in Tasmania we have a wonderful solar energy collecting machine, one that we cannot stop, that collects vast amounts of solar energy—read tens of thousands of tonnes every day of every year—and stores it in the form of woody biomass. It is arguable that, today, the Tasmanian landscape, as a general statement, contains vastly more flammable fuels than was the case in 1803. According to the professor, the out-of-control, extremely hot wildfires, the ones that do great damage to the environment as well as infrastructure and people, simply did not occur when the Aboriginal tribes managed the land.
If the professor's research is right, then, as a state, we have three choices. The first is to leave what is currently in reserves and parks and a lot of our forests as they are at present, essentially unmanaged. Scientists are warning that the question is not whether the state will burn, but when this will occur. If this is correct, fires like those this year, and the Dunalley fire in recent times, will be a regular occurrence, with the attendant triple bottom line damage, environmental, social and economic. The second is to emulate what Professor Gammage has reported the Aboriginal tribes did—that is, constant land management, primarily by burning. This would presumably result in there being smoke in the air for more days than many would prefer. The third is to do what it is now understood other jurisdictions have started to do—ones that have trodden the path Tasmania is heading down; that of locking up large areas of natural landscape and leaving it unmanaged, resulting in catastrophic wild fires. These jurisdictions have apparently now fundamentally changed their policy and started to actively manage their landscape by removing some of the accumulating biomass, not preventing wild fires but rendering such fires controllable, with such action providing positive triple bottom line outcomes, environmental, social and economic.
The phenomenon of climate change may well have played a part this year, given the occurrence of dry lightning caused wild fires on the central plateau. But it is the eucalypt and other lower elevation landscapes where the fuel accumulation is occurring. Such a climate change phenomenon, if shown to be correct, will only heighten the risk of wild fires elsewhere. There is of course the use of mechanical removal of biomass, which occurred in Tasmania for over 100 years. But this is increasingly being stopped by the ideological positions of some of those opposed to that sort of thing. If Professor Gammage is found to be correct, then we in Tasmania have to revisit our current policies and agreements regarding the management of our parks, reserves, wilderness areas and our forests more broadly. Remember, Tasmania is half covered with forests, most of which are highly flammable.
The 2013 extension of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area was in working forests. The people who are advocating for these things, aided and abetted by the previous government, are not conservationists; they are protectionists—the Tasmanian government and, indeed, the Commonwealth with the responsibilities that we have, UNESCO, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, with policies that were advocated by zealots, radical greens. There is no place for this in Tasmania. Lives will be put at risk, as will places in our state that are special. I have been there. I have been a bushwalker all my life. Those places that are special will come under threat. We need to significantly look at the way we manage our state if we are going to see those special areas retained.
The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:13