Pursuant to standing order 17(a), I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for McMillan, Swan, Hughes, Bonner and Robertson to be members of the Speaker’s panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.
In accordance with resolution 3 of the House of Representatives, relating to the registration of members’ interests, I have appointed Ms Claressa Surtees, Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives, as Registrar of Members’ Interests in the 45th Parliament.
by leave—On Monday at the Australian War Memorial, the Leader of the Opposition and I stood with many of our parliamentary colleagues alongside serving sailors, soldiers and airmen, veterans of conflicts past, and their families at a solemn ceremony in the Canberra twilight. On the eve of the 45th Parliament, we reflected on the most solemn responsibility conferred on us as our nation's leaders: the decision to send the men and women of the Australian Defence Force into harm's way.
The Anzac First World War Centenary of 2014 to 2018 is a powerful reminder of the cost of war as well, as the bravery, sacrifice and service of all who served and whose legacy is the freedom and the liberty we enjoy today. The centenary honours our original Anzacs and generations of service men and women who have worn the Australian uniform—in wars, conflicts and peacekeeping and peace-monitoring operations—throughout a Century of Service. The milestones we have remembered and will continue to remember over the Anzac Centenary will sometimes mark defeat and at other times victory. That crimson thread that binds them all is the selflessness and the courage of our service men and women, and their commitment to upholding our values and our freedoms.
Our commemorations are not a triumph of arms. We commemorate the triumph of the human spirit, the courage and the resolve of those men and women who 100 years ago, and ever since, and even as we speak here today, put their lives on the line to keep us safe and free, to defend us and our values.
The Anzac Centenary is not just about the immense tapestry of our military history; it is about each thread in that tapestry. So we remember the battles, the campaigns—those where we won, those where we lost. But we also remember each soldier in the trenches about to go over the top to certain death.
We honour those young men, not much more than boys, mown down as they ran towards the gunfire and those who lay in no-man's-land fatally wounded—thoughts only of family and home as their life ebbed away in an alien world of mud, barbed wire and death. We honour the courageous who, in their martial spirit, were heedless of fear, and we honour those who, almost numb with terror, nonetheless pressed on to do their duty. We honour those who fell from the sky and those whose resting place is the bottom of the ocean. We honour all those whose homes were changed forever, whose families were changed forever by lives lost or broken by war.
This year has already seen the 25th anniversary of the end of the First Gulf War, the 75th anniversary of the Siege of Tobruk, the 75th anniversary of the battles of Greece and Crete, the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Kapyong and the 50th anniversary of the end of the Indonesian Malaysian confrontation. But on Anzac Day in April, we looked to the Western front with 2016 marking 100 years since soldiers of our first Australian Imperial Force commenced operations there in the First World War. This theatre of war was a place of extraordinary courage and hard-fought victory, but it was also a place of unimaginable suffering and loss. In the Battle of the Somme alone, more than one million allied and enemy troops became casualties—dead, wounded or missing.
Of the almost 417,000 Australians who volunteered for service in the First World War, more than 60,000 died—some 46,000 of them on the Western Front. The horror and the massive loss of life on the Western Front had no precedent in the history of war. It was carnage on an industrial scale. Day after day, thousands of men were, in Charles Bean's words:
… turned in there as into some ghastly giant mincing machine.
The technology of killing had outstripped the competence of the generals who directed it. So many lions led to their death by donkeys. The generation of the trenches, of whom my grandfather Fred Turnbull was one, would never forget the horror and never forgive the folly.
Last month, 19 July marked 100 years since the Battle of Fromelles. In what has been described as the worst 24 hours in Australia's military history, the Australian 5th Division suffered more than 5½ thousand casualties—almost 2,000 were killed, died of wounds or were declared missing, and almost 500 became prisoners of war. They were the heaviest battle casualties incurred by a single Australian division in 24 hours during the First World War.
Just days later, Australian troops entered into the Battle of Pozieres. There, in darkness on 23 July, the 1st Australian Division took Pozieres in hard and intense fighting; the Germans responded by pounding the area with artillery. The capture of the town was a significant achievement, but in five bloody days the division lost 5,000 men. Sergeant Archie Barwick wrote in his diary:
Heavy fighting—simply murder—men falling everywhere … expecting death at every second. Dead and dying everywhere. Some men simply blown to pieces. Tired and sore at heart.
Just two weeks ago we also commemorated a more recent event in our military history: the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. This battle was the most costly single engagement for our Australian forces during the Vietnam War: 18 Australians were killed and 24 were wounded. On 18 August 1966, in monsoonal rain, the 105 Australian soldiers of Delta Company, 6th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, together with three New Zealand soldiers of their artillery forward observer party, faced an enemy at least 10 times greater in number.
It is to the great credit of our veterans who have travelled back to Vietnam year after year to remember that battle that they honour the many more Vietnamese who died and that they have made friends with their former foes—just as the veterans of Gallipoli made friends with their former Turkish foes in the years that followed those battles.
On Vietnam Veterans Day this year, we recalled the courage of our troops on the ground; the skill of our pilots flying missions in support of the ground operations; the distinction with which our sailors served; and all the personnel who supported the troops. At the time, as we have reflected—both the Leader of the Opposition and I have reflected—they did not receive the gratitude they deserved. But their bravery and determination is now rightly acknowledged in our national story. They have inspired—and continue to inspire—the service men and women who followed and still follow in their footsteps.
Australians do not glorify war, let alone gloat about victories. Our commemorations honour the human spirit, the sacrifice of friend and foe. And 'Lest we forget' points to many truths: lest we forget those whose sacrifice secured our freedom; lest we forget the veterans and their families; lest we forget our obligation as leaders to resolve conflicts peacefully wherever possible; and lest we forget never to commit our troops to conflict unless they are well led, well armed and equipped with all of the means to secure their objectives and, fighting done, return home.
Serving our country has a long-term impact on those who serve and on their families and it is important we acknowledge that reality here today too. Some soldiers, like Lance Corporal Robert Alex Bolton-Wood, who died near Pozieres 100 years ago and whom we honoured at the Last Post ceremony at the Australian War Memorial last night, remain missing. Lance Corporal Bolton-Wood is just one of some 18,000 Australians who died on the Western Front who have no known graves.
Tens of thousands more died on foreign soil and were buried there in military cemeteries, as was the case with some of our soldiers who served in the Vietnam War and on Thai-Malay border operations. On 2 June this year, the remains of 32 Australian servicemen and dependants made their final journey home from the Terendak Military Cemetery in Malaysia and Kranji cemetery in Singapore.
June this year also saw celebrations of the Returned Services League of Australia, of its 100th anniversary. The organisation's motto, 'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance', is a reminder that the fight to protect our freedoms comes at a cost and that our national interests must always be guarded as the supreme responsibility of government. This House and the nation are united in our respect for the RSL and its century of service to veterans and their families and for the care and support it will continue to provide.
This week is Legacy Week and we are reminded of the support they provide for some 80,000 widows and 1,800 children, with services including counselling, special housing, medical, advocacy and social support. We recall the words of Corporal Fred Muller, who, burying one of our own in the soil of Pozieres and with tears running down his cheeks, said: 'Never worry, my friend, I'll look after your family.' His legacy is our legacy as well.
The 29th of July marked another milestone with the 50th anniversary of Lavarack Barracks in Townsville. The barracks is home to 3rd Australian Brigade. This 102-year-old military formation has a proud history which includes Gallipoli, the Somme, the Third Battle of Ypres, Bullecourt and the Hindenburg Line. Since the Lavarack Barracks opened, its soldiers have deployed to locations including Vietnam, Malaysia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Townsville is, as its former member Peter Lindsay used to say, a garrison city, and recently also remembered a tragic event which took place nearby. On 12 June 1996, soldiers from the Special Air Service Regiment were conducting counter-terrorist training with 5 Aviation Regiment in the high range area, just outside Townsville. During night insertion exercises, two Black Hawk helicopters collided. We remember the three Army aircrew and fifteen SAS Regiment personnel who were killed in this, Australia's worst peacetime military aviation disaster.
As we look forward this year we will also remember the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Maryang San. Australian soldiers, fighting for the first time within a United Nations coalition, had already proved their value at Kapyong, helping to stem the massive Chinese Spring Offensive and advance towards Seoul. Thirty-two Australians were killed, 59 wounded and three taken prisoner but allied forces inflicted heavy casualties on the Chinese.
Captain Reg Saunders, the Indigenous Australian commanding officer of C Company, 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, wrote of the Battle of Kapyong, 'At last I feel like an Anzac and I imagine there were 600 others like me.' Then, in early October 1951, at Maryang San came another fiercely-fought battle against superior enemy numbers. Following two unsuccessful attempts by US forces to take the hills around Maryang San, the men of 3RAR and their allies secured that strategically important feature. In October this year, we will recall the taking of hills 317 and 355 and the tenacity of the soldiers of the 28th British Commonwealth Brigade.
We remember these events in our military history for good reason. And all too often, it can be uncomfortable to turn the pages of those histories and reflect on the similarities between those times and our own today. They paint a picture of where we have come from as a nation. They remind us of what it is that we fight for: not to conquer but to uphold and resist threats to liberty and rights—our own and those of others.
Australian men and women are currently deployed in the Middle East area of operations and many other parts of the world in this quest. For more than a century, remarkable men and women have given themselves and their service for us, our freedoms and our nation's determination, always to build a better world. They deserve our thanks, they deserve our remembrance and they deserve our support, as do their families. And, above all, they deserve our wise leadership.
It is fitting to begin this sitting day by respectfully commemorating the centenary of the battles of Fromelles and Pozieres and the 50th-year anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. The Australians we remember today risked and lost their lives so that we might live ours in peace. In this parliament, where conflict can be trivial and even contrived, we all honour those who face real danger, who put themselves in harm's way and, in some cases, make the supreme sacrifice in Australia's name.
At about 6 pm on 19 July 1916, men of the 5th Australian Division clambered out of their trenches and advanced on the German position. In the hours beforehand, as they waited for the final command, while shells split the sky above, many of those young men undoubtedly would have been afraid. Yet when the word came they advanced as one, reminding us that true courage is found not in the absence of fear but in facing it. The seven hours of preparatory bombardment deprived the Australians and their British comrades of the element of surprise but, sadly, barely dented the well-entrenched German forces. The machine-gun fire was fierce, the carnage unimaginable. By 8 am the following morning the Battle of Fromelles was over and more than 5½ thousand Australians lay wounded or dead. This was a dreadful toll, but Fromelles was only the beginning.
A few days later, a few miles away, more than 5,000 Australians from the 1st Division would be injured or killed at Pozieres. In the words of Sergeant Barwick, who was quoted earlier:
It was something awful, for we were out in the open and unprotected and men fell fast as rain.
When the 2nd Division came to relieve the first, they sustained more than 6,800 casualties before the first week of August was over.
In a few hours in a few weeks on the other side of the world tens of thousands of Australian lives were fractured forever. For some families, simple village names such as Fromelles and Pozieres spoke of a knock at the door or a War Office telegram; tears in the night and an empty chair at every Christmas thereafter. Then there were the young Australians who came home old before their time, changed beyond understanding by what they had seen and endured.
It is important that we honour the Centenary of Anzac, because back 100 years ago in only the second decade of Federation, we suffered the greatest tragedy in our nation's modern history. Two out of every five Australian men aged 18 to 44 in our young nation enlisted. From a population of 4.9 million people 61,000 died, 8,000 were taken prisoner, 16,000 were gassed, 37,000 were horribly disfigured—referring to themselves ever after as 'the broken gargoyles'—4,000 lost more than one limb and then there were tens of thousands permanently bearing the invisible scars of trauma. And there were so many whose lives were shorter and harder than they would otherwise have been.
Nor can the loss be measured in just one generation. In my own family two sons went to war; neither returned. The parents broke up and the two surviving daughters were fostered out. I was speaking to one of my relatives, and he said it was two generations of family scarred by this conflict—and there are many other examples. Even our very landscape still wears the toll of memory. Seedlings planted to commemorate the fallen have grown into magnificent avenues of honour. Those humble white stone monuments form focal points in country towns and coastal villages. When you read these lists now in so many places, the list of names seems just impossibly long. When you look at these country towns and you try to imagine taking all of these young men out of that population, it makes you shake your head. Of course even now there is that flash of recognition, the echo of old pain, when you see two or three of the same surname grouped together on the list—brothers lost to their mother, sometimes in same awful hour.
A century on, there is no-one amongst us who can speak firsthand of Fromelles or Pozieres. Even those left to grow old have left us. Yet today in this House we declare again that age has not wearied their sacrifice; their deaths were not in vain and the memory of their courage and lives still lives with us. A full 50 years later, after these dreadful battles and 12,000 kilometres away in the red mud and monsoonal rain, a new generation of Anzacs clashed with North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces amidst the straight lines of the Long Tan rubber plantation.
Most of the nashos were barely 20 or 21, fresh from training at Puckapunyal. The regulars enlisted at 19. The commanding officer of Delta Company, Harry Smith, himself was just 33. Long Tan was a feat of arms achieved against overwhelming odds. D Company inflicted more than a thousand enemy casualties as wave after wave crashed against their professional, determined, unbroken defensive fire. When reinforcements came and victory was won, it probably did not occur to any of these men that they were heroes in the finest tradition of our first Anzacs. After all, how could what they achieved possibly sink in, with half of their mates either dead, wounded or in hospital? How could they feel like the heroes that they in fact were? And then, bare weeks and months after these young Australians had fought for their lives, many found themselves back home in Australia—off the boat, handing in their rifles and their pay books at Enoggera.
Now, in Brisbane the record reflects there was a parade, but there was no subsequent counselling, no rehabilitation, no attempt to help reconcile the experience of war with a return to the suburbs. How could they explain to the people they returned to what they had been doing barely weeks earlier? Instead, our servicemen were left to adjust to a life in a country shamefully and, in too many cases, deliberately ignorant of their service, their suffering and their sacrifice.
For those of us too young to remember the temperature of those times, the stories of those who were there echo across the years. One veteran I had the privilege of meeting at a commemoration ceremony in Darwin earlier this month, told me of a friend who had been called up, fought, sent home and demobilised before the age of 21. The following weekend he went to a party with some of his mates from uni. A girl there asked him what he had been up to. He told her where he had been. In front of the whole party she slapped him across the face. With the passage of time, I can understand the political disagreement of the war and, indeed, the conscription, but I cannot, for the life of me, understand blaming the soldiers in the conflict.
The hard truth of those times is that far too many Australians sent into the jungle dark of Vietnam were shunned on their return. There are some haunting words of returned service people inscribed on the Vietnam Memorial on Anzac Parade, but one in particular stands out to me. It goes: 'I don't seem to have many friends since I came home. If you weren't there, you cannot understand.' Not only did Australia fail to understand; with a few noble exceptions, we failed to try.
For too long our nation closed its eyes and its heart. Thankfully, from the return home parade of 1987 and onwards, the failure has been gradually corrected. The wrong is on its way to being righted, and in a time when so many old certainties and old loyalties have faded, the story of the Vietnam War and the Anzac legend, as a whole, has only grown in resonance and in meaning.
It should be the source of tremendous pride to all the veterans and their families, and to all Australians, that our commemorations, here and overseas, are overwhelmingly led and supported by our young people. It should be, perhaps, the source of pride to our veterans that every member of parliament who serves in the parliament regards the attendance at these memorial events as possibly the best part of the job. But no words we say today can truly draw out the details of the battles long ago.
Our obligation as leaders, as legislators, is to be practical rather than sentimental. Uncomfortable as it may be, we should acknowledge that as a nation we have been better at honouring the memory of our dead than offering decent support for the living. We have not always fulfilled the duty we owe to those who have done theirs. For all the national local monuments that instruct us to remember, there are no memorials, no walls covered in poppies for the veterans who take their own lives, yet their loss is no less, the sadness of their passing no harder for those who love them.
Despite its prevalence, post-traumatic stress disorder remains poorly understood, inadequately measured. One in 10 of our fellow Australians who are homeless is a veteran. We have to do better than this. When people are prepared to pay the ultimate price for our country, none of us has the right to say that we cannot afford to care for them. Right now with a new generation of service men and women coming home from Australia's longest war, we owe our veterans more than the respect of history or a solemn tribute to honoured memory; more than a poppy, a sprig of rosemary or a rising sun badge on the lapel, more than a few coins in the Legacy tin. Saying 'Lest we forget' must be matched with practical help, a caring arm and a helping hand for those who come home, and better support for their families. This is a place of many promises: some are good and some are even honoured. But, today, let us vow to give new, tangible meaning to Australia's oldest promise: 'We will remember them. Lest we to forget.'
by leave—My great-grandfather, who was also great-grandfather of Christian Porter in this place, tossed a coin with his brother to see who would go and who would stay. My great-grandfather lost, so his brother went to Gallipoli. He will always be at Gallipoli. There is a wonderful movie called Saving Private Ryan, which has the most moving scene I have ever seen in a movie. It is when the cameras are behind the mother, when the two men in black come up the driveway and hand her the telegram, and every single thing that is in that woman's body that keeps her upright just crumples as she falls into the floor knowing that her three sons are dead. Well, my great-great-grandmother stood in the doorway and received that telegram, and my great-grandmother also stood in the doorway and received that telegram. In a terrible piece of irony, Bert Henley, some years after he returned from Changi prison, died prematurely.
Having said those things, it was my generation that went to Vietnam, and I was lucky enough to not have to go. I was one of the lucky ones. But of those that went, and the sacrifices they made—I think the Leader of the Opposition told a very moving story at the university. The governor of Queensland and I were presidents of university colleges in those days, and she became the ambassador of China. I said to her, 'Was Mao Zedong as bad as people made him out to be—28 million dead?' She said, 'No, it wasn't 28 million.' I said, 'How many was it?' She said, 'It was 48 million,' and the last three books I read said 48 million.
We lived in a period where the communists were taking a country, on average, every two years, and Stalin, as the history books tell you, was responsible for 28 million deaths. The monstrosities of communism in those two countries accounted for 100 million deaths. Every two years they were taking a country until they hit Vietnam, and the Governor-General of Australia, on this day last year, said it was the final battle. Never again did the communists take another country. The history books are now written, and we know that those people who were unlucky enough—and I think the word is 'unlucky'—to have been balloted or been sent to Vietnam are the heroes who turned back the monstrosity that, just in two countries, had murdered 100 million people. And, if we pay a tribute, I finish by reciting a wonderful country music song which centres upon the Battle of Beersheba. It concludes by saying:
Now the angel of death with his knock at the door.
The crumpled up telegram falls to the floor.
Her reason for livin is livin no more, as she cries for the pride of Australia.
Thank you.
I move:
That the House take note of the document presented by the Prime Minister.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Scandals in the banking and financial services industry have led to:
(i) retirees having their retirement savings gutted;
(ii) families being rorted;
(iii) small business owners losing everything;
(iv) life insurance policy holders being denied justice; and
(v) agricultural assets being improperly foreclosed;
(b) despite several inquiries, new powers, new resources, and a Financial Ombudsman Service, the rorts and the rip offs continue;
(c) it is clear from the breadth and scope of the allegations that the problems in this industry go beyond any one bank, type of financial institution or group of receivers; and
(d) Labor, Greens, crossbench, Liberal and National parliamentarians have supported a thorough investigation of the culture and practices within the financial services industry through a Royal Commission which is the only forum with the coercive powers and broad jurisdiction necessary to properly perform this investigation; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Government to listen to the many victims of banking and financial scandals who are calling for the immediate establishment of a Royal Commission.
Australians have actually found something that this Prime Minister stands for: protecting big banks. The Prime Minister and his coalition are running a protection racket to protect the big banks of Australia from the scrutiny and accountability that Australians want to give them. He is putting Australian banks ahead of the Australians who use them. Or, in other words, you can take Malcolm Turnbull out of the investment bank but you cannot take the investment bank out of Malcolm Turnbull.
There are problems in our banking sector. Every Australian uses a bank. Every Australian relies on the integrity of the banking sector. Labor wants the strongest possible banking sector meeting the highest possible standards. We have seen a string of scandals and rip-offs and rorts, and all we get are smirks and protection conduct from the front bench of the Turnbull government. There have been thousands denied life insurance payments, elderly Australians robbed of their retirement savings, small investors ripped off by predatory lending and business loans forged and manipulated.
This is the story of one person I met who went to his bank seeking a loan to buy an investment property. The application form was doctored to increase his income and assets, and rent on the property was factored in even though it was not built. By any honest standard this loan should never have been approved, but it was. When he asked to review the terms of this loan he was told, 'Oh, the documents are unavailable.' In the last five years, this Australian has barely made his interest payments and no-one at the bank takes any responsibility. There are tens of thousands of Australians with similar stories: the stories of CommBank and life insurance, where a claim for a heart attack was rejected because it was the wrong sort of heart attack—outrageous!
These are not isolated incidents; there is a systemic culture of crooked behaviour. And what is the latest revelation? ASIC is investigating rate rigging—the bank-bill swap-rate fixing scandal. What this practically means is that Australians are paying a higher interest rate on their mortgage and getting a lower interest rate on their savings. Every Australian uses a bank, but too many Australians are being used by their bank.
The government knows there is a problem. We have Mr Turnbull, the warrior of the lunchtime lecture, head down to the 199th anniversary of Westpac—long-time shareholder, first-time critic! We are weighing up the royal commission; there have been many calls—
The Leader of the House, on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says he wants to have a civil House, but he is still not calling the Prime Minister by his title in the House. He needs to do so.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr Burke interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call. The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. The point that the Leader of the House makes is right. In the last week of the last parliament—in fact, even in the very last speech of the last parliament—this standing order was breached. Members will be referred to by their correct titles or I will take action on both sides.
If we cannot call him by his name, the Prime Minister, the lunchtime warrior, gave Westpac a lecture—wow, didn't that change their ways? We listened more carefully to what the Prime Minister said than the big banks did. The next day we said, 'Even if the Prime Minister says there is a problem in the culture, enough is enough.'
The final straw which tipped the back of the case in favour of the royal commission was delivered by none other than the gentlemen sitting opposite me. It is not just Mr Turnbull, the current Prime Minister, who has acknowledged—
The Leader of the Opposition will refer to members by their correct titles.
He is the current Prime Minister, unless you know something we do not!
The Leader of the Opposition will proceed with his speech.
I am more polite about the Prime Minister than half of his backbench. He said:
We have to acknowledge there have been too many troubling incidents over recent times for them simply to be dismissed.
Let me repeat the golden words of our Prime Minister:
We have to acknowledge there have been too many troubling incidents over recent times for them simply to be dismissed.
To be fair, it is not just the Prime Minister in the coalition who has been calling out the banks. There is also the member for Leichhardt.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting!
He said:
I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of problems within the sector—
but the member for Leichhardt went on:
but an apology from the Big Banks and a commitment not to do it again in the future is not enough.
I believe we need to go further—we need a full Royal Commission into the profit-driven and immoral activities of the Big Banks …
He said that ruling out a royal commission was a captain's call. We also had the member for Cowper say:
I think it is definitely something that should be considered.
Whilst I do not often quote this gentleman, I will on this occasion. The member for Dawson tweeted:
We need a royal commission into the banks. Their treatment of farmers is appalling.
And, of course, there is Senator Williams, who I respect greatly:
The more I go along in this job, the more I see the evidence and the clear evidence in the actual weighting of a royal commission, because there's so much wrongdoing going on we need to get to the bottom of it.
No less than eight members of this cowardly government have previously called for a royal commission, and I am confident that there are many more who now support this move.
What is the case for the royal commission? We just cannot leave it to ASIC, despite what the government said. We need a royal commission. Let me go through the scandal. Whilst one does not presume to be a predictor of the future, let me describe the last few scandals and let's have a guess if it will happen again. The journalists and whistleblowers expose the scandal and there is a public outcry that follows. Maybe even some of the brave hearts opposite are outraged, with their crocodile tears. But then it is characterised as an isolated incident—mid-tier rogue sort of gunmen going off on their own—and not the conduct of the whole bank. There are heartfelt promises that it will never happen again. Perhaps there might even be a special inquiry by ASIC, APRA or a government-appointed panel. And do you know what happens a few months later, Mr Speaker? We do it all again because the banks do not respect the government. They are not worried by the government's calls for action because they know that with this mob in power nothing will ever happen.
What we need is real action. Australians are sick and tired of the scandals being investigated after the harm and the damage is done. They are sick of the phoney apologies and they are sick of the speeding fines that this government issues to the banks. We need public scrutiny. The systemic problems of a royal commission require public scrutiny. Since 2009 at least 111 bankers, planners and advisers have been quietly sacked from their companies or reported to ASIC for misconduct. That is more than one a month. Australians do not know what led to these sackings or what any internal investigations uncovered afterwards.
As Chris Bowen and I have said, Labor has some clear initial objectives for this royal commission. We want to know the following: (1) how widespread instances of illegal and unethical behaviour are within Australia's financial services industry—how widespread; (2) how do Australia's financial services institutions treat their duty of care to their customers; (3) how do the culture, ethical standards and business structures of Australian financial services institutions affect the behaviour of these institutions; (4) whether Australia's regulators are really equipped to identify and prevent illegal and unethical behaviour; and (5) the comparable international experience with similar financial services industry misconduct and best practice responses to those incidents. And, of course, the commission would need to consider other events that may come to light in the course of investigating the above.
Simply put, the case for supporting this resolution, and a royal commission into the banks, is that illegal and unethical behaviour within the industry is about culture. Consumer protection and duty of care is about customers. Culture, ethical standards and business structures impact on behaviour. It is about incentives. It is about the powers of the regulator policing the sector.
These problems are too big for business as usual. And, in many ways, the government has accepted that there is a problem. Remember their ever-evolving and deteriorating position: when we called for it before, Mr Turnbull went down, spoke to Westpac, said there are problems but then did nothing. That is business as usual for this chap and this government. So we have the Westpac lecture and nothing happens. Then, before the election, they say, 'Well, we don't need a banking royal commission. The regulator's got all the power it needs.' Then, after the election, all of a sudden we discover that there is an even bigger problem, and maybe we do not have the regulator.
What solution do these desperate people on the other side, running a protection racket for banks, come up with? They say, 'Let's set up a Liberal-controlled House of Representatives committee, with less power—
Mr Coleman interjecting—
With all respect to the member for Banks, they are the government for banks, so there was very little concern there. The point about it—and now we have had a few of the breakaways in the coalition say, 'Actually, there's such a problem going on that we will skip the royal commission. We'll set up a whole new court to deal with the problems.' You get a sense here that the government will do anything and everything, say anything and everything, to avoid a royal commission into banks.
Now, I would like the government just to subside today and give in but they will not. This is one of those curious events in Australian politics: we have won the argument, and only the government is too dumb to realise that they are backing a loser by opposing the royal commission. What we have found in the search though—and this is the good news about the government—is that the great search in the last 12 months found one thing that this Prime Minister stands for. And it has not been easy; we know that he holds a position for at least a day and a half and either his backbench rebel or work out that it is an incompetent bungling, or we make the case and he retreats. But full points to the member for Wentworth: there is one thing that he stands for—and I admire you for at least standing for something, because that is not the normal practice! You are willing to fight, fight and fight for the banks.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Sure, I can talk through the Chair: it does not change the truth of what I am saying!
What we have found is that there is one thing he will stand for: the banks. You have to love the form of this government. Only the government could think that it is a good idea to give a multi-billion dollar tax cut to the big banks—that was in the Governor-General's address. Fantastic! NAB, Westpac, CommBank, ANZ: they were rapt with the last election result. Come in, spinner: $7.4 billion tax cut. Malcolm Turnbull: best friend the banks will ever have in this place, I have no doubt.
The Leader of the Opposition will refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen will not interject!
The Prime Minister. The point about it is—
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen will cease interjecting! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. He is the Second Deputy Speaker. We are going to start this parliament in a different way to the way it finished in the last week. He is the Second Deputy Speaker; he has special responsibilities. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
We have found something the Prime Minister will stand up for—and we know that has not been easy and, indeed, the opposition within the government know that too—but the point is that he will stand up for the banks; he will give them a tax cut. He will not give them a royal commission—although the banks must be getting a little nervous because we have seen the usual sort of coalition government prime ministerial retreat from a position. Before the election, ASIC was enough; after the election, they thought they would slap it with the wet lettuce leaf of the member for Banks and a committee controlled by the coalition. Now, there has been an outbreak of a whole new tribunal.
The truth of the matter is that Australians are fed up with the conduct of their banks. They did not approve of the fact that they could not even see the rate reduction by the RBA passed on. The government said, 'Please do it,' but they ignored him. So tomorrow, Prime Minister, I am meeting with the victims of bank scandals. I have written to you asking you to come along. If you are serious about your plans, come and join me, meet with the victims, look them in the eye and tell them everything is fine—because it is not, Prime Minister.
Is the motion seconded?
In rising to second this motion—representing the sorts of electorates that I have to represent—this parliament decided to take away the rights of sugarcane farmers to arbitration. People on my right believe, profoundly, in arbitration for everybody except farmers, while the people on my left probably believe that no-one should have arbitration—they let the free market benevolently look after us all. Think of companies like Wilma that have a monopoly and that can only sell your sugar if you are local mill, so they can pay you whatever they feel like paying you. Needless to say, it is not very much.
There is not a person in this House that is not aware of what happened when the dairy deregulation took place. There is not a person in this House, probably outside of the crossbenchers, who has moved to restore the rights of arbitration to the dairy farmers. They are in exactly the same situation. The banks have to come in and take over these cripples. The second, twin blow to the sugar industry—which is the biggest employer in Queensland; it is bigger than coal; coal is bigger in revenue; both of them are not very labour intensive, but it is the industry—the second mortal blow to that industry was the decision by both sides of this parliament not to move with ethanol.
We have a more enlightened view from the state governments, and I quote Iemma, former Premier of New South Wales: 'I cannot go another day with people dying in the City of Sydney that simply do not have to die.' And that is why every other country on earth has gone to ethanol. But the implications for the sugar industry—the giant juggernaut of the Queensland economy—are profound. We are now closing a sugar mill every two years. We have 23 left. To put that in perspective, for nearly a decade Brazil was building 20 sugar mills a year, and America was building nearly 40 ethanol plants every year. But we only have 20 left and they are closing at the rate of one every two years. We are taking the brunt and, unfortunately and sadly for many decent people working in the banking industry, they have to do the dirty job—the extremely dirty job.
For those people that think this is not happening or that this is some figment of our imagination, there are 13 stations that have been foreclosed on. I was with some people from a tiny town called Caulfield on the weekend. Charlie Phillott—the very famous person who was twice on 60 Minutesnamed 12 stations that have been foreclosed on, in just his area of the Winton Shire, and the Catholic priest in Longreach said that one in four of the station properties in the Longreach area are being foreclosed on. That is three towns; we have over 50 towns like that in the cattle industry, so you can imagine the pain, disaster and misery that is coming down.
I said that there is now one person—I am trying to avoid the s-word these days—doing away with themselves every three weeks in North Queensland's cattle industry, which, again, was a decision by this place to stop live-cattle exports. It dropped the price of cattle in Australia clean in half, which sent every station-owner into penury. I said, 'One person is doing away with themselves every three weeks,' and a couple of people got nasty because I was wrong on the figures—it was one every two weeks that was doing away with themselves. I know these people. They are my friends and relatives.
Let us just start with the differences. We ran around congratulating ourselves after the GFC and, let's face it, the credit must go to Mr Swan and Mr Rudd for rescuing us from the GFC, and there is no question that is how the history books will read. There are a lot of people on the other side of the House who would agree with what they did, and we thank them for that. But let me just say what precipitated that was housing.
If you read the books—and there are three very good books out on the GFC—they will constantly quote the case of the Mexican picker of cherries who bought a house for $990,000 and he was on $40,000 a year and he had five kids. And the bank lent him that money. That is why the whole pack of cards came tumbling down. It was amazing that nobody in that nation—not one single person—was going to blow the whistle, except people who were going to make money out of it. They figured a way to make money out of the crash: 'Buy all the default insurance policies. We'll make a squillion dollars here!' See how many people blew the whistle in the effort to make money.
Over here—let me quote the figures—the last quoted figure I saw for the average price of a house in the greater Sydney area was $970,000. The average income for an Australian is $74,000. Take out his tax and he is on $50,000, which is about the repayments on the house. So if you tell me there is not a massive crash coming here then I say you are a numbskull. That is what I say to you. There is a massive crash coming.
I share the Prime Minister's view in the sense that I am one of the very few people in Australia that were responsible for calling on a royal commission. I and Bill Gunn, the Deputy Premier, were well aware of police corruption, which had reached a terrible level in Queensland—by our standards, anyway—so we called on that royal commission.
Government members interjecting—
You people are laughing. A lot of you come from New South Wales. We are angels—absolute angels—compared with you people! Let me return. This is probably not a subject of humour. I share the Prime Minister's view in the sense that you cannot control—and I say this seriously to the House—a royal commission. I will have to live, until the day that I die, that four of my cabinet colleagues—
Honourable members interjecting—
Stay with it—there is a message for every person in this House. Of 17 who have left this place, two went to jail because they had acted improperly with their benefits. Let me go specifically to the four people that went to jail in Queensland. The leading case was Brian Austin's case. Brian Austin's leading crime that he had committed was—listen to it—that he had used a government car to drive from Brisbane to Armidale to see his kids in boarding school that weekend. That was the leading example used to put him in jail—caged like an animal for two years. For the other four it was similar. There was no government corruption involved. There was misuse of your private assets that the government gives you.
You can all start thinking about your conscience. You can all start shivering, because you should. If you have a look at those cases, you should. But let me come to the point, and this is the point where I disagree with the Prime Minister, even though I can see the great dangers, the terrible things that happen in a royal commission, innocent people that get terribly hurt. Whatever Kerry Packer's misdemeanours may have been, I do not think he was the goanna running the drug syndicates of Australia. They are the things that happen in a royal commission.
I can see the Prime Minister's viewpoint clearly and I respect it, but I have to say that, if you want to stop police corruption, as in our case, that is what you have to do. We did not get the source of that police corruption; he was living with two top-of-the-range Mercedes-Benzes in a mansion at probably the most expensive address in Australia when he was the sergeant of police. We did not get him but we got the man that was protecting him. We took his protection away. So the royal commission achieved the purpose for which it was put there: to stop the police corruption. There were 45 murders that we knew of coming out of the police corruption.
Prime Minister, I ask you to think again on this issue, because, whilst I share your views of these things and every royal commission that I have seen has done terrible damage to totally innocent people, the royal commission that I was involved with stopped what we were trying to stop. Let me just go through: when everyone was congratulating themselves in Australia about how wonderful our banks were and how wonderful APRA was— (Time expired)
I move:
that all words after "that" be omitted with a view to substitute the following words: This House:
(1)acknowledges concerns in the community about certain practices in the banking sector;
(2)notes that most of the notable scandals and collapses within the financial services sectors occurred under Labor's watch, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister responsible for Financial Services;
(3)notes that the Leader of the Opposition, as the then Minister responsible for Financial Services, neither initiated a royal commission into the banking sectors nor took meaningful action against the banks;
(4)supports the Prime Minister's actions in:
(a)calling on the banks to pass on interest rate cuts;
(b)reminding the banks that they operate in Australia under a 'social licence';
(c)his commitment to improving the culture in the banking industry; and
(d)his requirement that Australia's major banks appear at least once a year before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics to enable the Committee to report jointly to the Treasurer and the Parliament on Australia's banking and financial system;
(5)acknowledges that the Australian Government has already taken significant steps to further strengthen our banking and financial system by commissioning the Murray Financial System Inquiry and taking significant steps toward implementing the recommendations of that report;
(a)notes that the Murray Inquiry was opposed by Labor, with the then Treasurer, the Member for McMahon, stating "The finanical system is strong, well-regulated and well managed and I have not seen a case for a full blown inquiry";
(6)notes that the the Australian Government has conducted a capability review of ASIC and has acted to strengthen the resources and capability of the regulator, which not only has the investigative and reporting powers of a Royal Commission but also strong powers to compel a person to answer questions under oath, to compel the production of documents, to seek search warrants, to conduct investigations and to then use this information in prosecutions;
(a)notes that ASIC has commenced legal proceedings against three of the big four banks for alleged market manipulation of the bank bill swap rate, has commenced an investigation into the allegations surrounding CommInsure and the broader life insurance sector and is undertaking investigations into the conduct of the largest financial advice firms, as part of its Wealth Management Project;
(7)notes that, at their appearance before the House of Representatives Standing Committe on Economics, the banks will be required to explain pricing decisions and discuss their progress in responding to various issues raised in previous Parliamentary inquiries;
(8)notes that the Government is committed to ensuring that consumer complaints in the financial system don't fall through the cracks, that consumers can access justice and appropriate compensation in a timely manner, and that the Government has tasked an expert panel, led by Professor Ian Ramsay, with a comprehensive review of the External Dispute Resolution Schemes;
(9)notes that the Australian Government, via the Ramsay Review, is looking at establishing a one-stop-shop, which could formally adjudicate on consumer complaints and award compensation to those affected by malfeasance;
(10)notes that the Ramsay Review will produce an interim report to Government by November this year and will produce its final report no later than March 2017;
(11)supports the Government's action in tasking the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman with a forensic review of the most egregious cases identified by the Parliamentary Joint Committee report into the Impairment of Customer Loans to determine whether the regulatory deficiencies identified by the Inquiry, and any additional deficiencies identified through the forensic examination of the cases, require further specific reforms; and
(12)notes that if a Royal Commisssion was to go ahead it would simply be reviewing old ground and would delay well-developed and important reforms that will strengthen consumer protections, ensure malpractice is detected and punished, and provide a one-stop-shop for consumer complaints, in addition, a Royal Commission would send a signal internationally that there are structural problems with our banking and financial system which would have significant repercussions for confidence, international investment and for our AAA credit rating.
In moving that motion—
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
The point of order: you have previously ruled that members in this place were to be called by their correct titles. You called the member for Dawson. What we just heard was not the member the Dawson. I thought back in Mackay we would have someone with some courage.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. That is a frivolous point of order. He does not have the call. The member for Dawson has the call.
If we want to talk about courage, let's talk about courage. Let's talk about what this government is going to do and what this government is doing right now. We know that there is a problem in the banking industry, so what we have done and what we continue to do is something unlike what those on the opposite side do: we are taking action. They want to have a very expensive inquiry that is only going to provide recommendations to government. And when are they so brave to do this? When they are in opposition.
They had plenty of time while they were in government. They had plenty of different scandals that occurred to actually come up with something brave: the Opes Prime margin lending scandal, the CBA financial planning scandal, Storm Financial planning scandal, Trio Capital, Great Southern north, another breach of reports by CBA financial planning, MF Global, Macquarie Equities Limited, Banksia, CBA again. All of that happened under Labor's watch, while Bill Shorten, while the Leader of the Opposition—sorry, Mr Speaker—was responsible for financial services.
He could have done something then. They are very, very weak in government; very brave in opposition. But, instead, we are taking action as a government, and we have already commissioned the financial system inquiry, the Murray inquiry, a broad root-and-branch review of Australia's financial system that was opposed by Labor. The then Treasurer, the member for McMahon, said—and I said it in the motion: 'The financial system is strong, well regulated and well managed, and I have not seen a case for a full-blown inquiry.' They are once again brave in opposition; blind in opposition, little mice in government.
I have to say with the Murray inquiry we have accepted all but one of the 44 recommendations. We have gone to ASIC. We have strengthened ASIC. We have strengthened ASIC with a range of different powers and with more resources and, as a result, three of the four big banks are currently before them, being investigated, being prosecuted. And I have to say I do applaud the work of the government here in establishing the Ramsay review.
The Ramsay review is going to be very, very important, because what trumps a big expensive talk-fest is actual action. Having a tribunal, a one-stop shop set-up, which is what the Ramsay review is tasked with looking at—a one-stop shop, perhaps a tribunal that can go and assess individual complaints that consumers bring before that tribunal. They can go and assess them to bring the banks before it, ask the banks questions, pursue perhaps penalties, but certainly provide compensation to victims of banks. I have to say that is what a lot of us have been looking for. That sort of action trumps all of the talk that these guys have, all of the talk that the Labor Party has—again, these people are lions in opposition but mice in government when it comes to the banking industry.
We have taken action. Can I just say one further thing. These guys might be mice—
The member for Dawson will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
It's not a point of order. I seek under standing orders to make an intervention during the speech to ask the member speaking why he said—
The member for Dawson has indicated he will not accept the intervention.
It is only his own words.
The Manager of Opposition Business does not have the call. The member for Dawson.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The member for Dawson has the call.
You've had your chance, Tony. You've had your chance. Mr Speaker, the Labor Party might be mice when it comes to this, but I have to say I respect the member for Kennedy because he has had this issue and he has run with this issue for quite a long time. He knows as well as I do the problems that there are with the banking sector and the rural sector.
I am sure that through this Ramsay review we are going to get a tribunal established which will enable victims of banking malfeasance to come before that tribunal—penalties for the banks and compensation for the victims. That is what we have been looking for; that is what this government is going to deliver. (Time expired)
Just before I call for a seconder, I do just want to point out to the House on this first day that there have been complaints from, variously, the Leader of the House in the previous parliament and others about the length of motions. And there have been very lengthy motions. I am going to refer members now to page 297 of Practice, which points out that motions should be concise and not overly lengthy and that previous Speakers have taken action. The amendment moved by the member for Dawson was extremely lengthy. It took almost five minutes to read. It is far too long. I have chosen not to take action on this occasion, but I just flag that now, in all fairness.
Mr Speaker, before you call the seconder—
No, I am going to call the seconder.
I am seeking leave.
I am going to ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat. I was about to call the seconder. You were not on your feet then. I made a statement to the House. I am now calling the seconder. The member for Swan, is the motion seconded?
Yes, I second the excellent motion by the member for Dawson and reserve my right to speak. Thank you.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to. The Leader of the House.
I move:
That the motion be put.
The question is that the motion be put.
(In division) On a point of order, with respect to the count that has just been reported. If there are 75 being counted on the government side, it means that a member on parental leave—that was carried by resolution from this House—had no government member paired. We carried a resolution of the House yesterday that a member was on parental leave, and every—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
No, I have not called the Leader of the House; the Leader of the House will resume his seat for a second.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides! I am not calling anyone until the House comes to order.
Honourable members interjecting—
I am going to address the House: the Manager of Opposition Business has raised a point of order on a matter that he knows that the chair has absolutely no responsibility for. The count is done by the tellers, and pairing arrangements, if they exist, are a matter for the whips. The original question was—
Ms Henderson interjecting—
I am addressing the House, member for Corangamite. The original question was that the motion be agreed to, to which the honourable member for Dawson has moved an amendment. The immediate question is—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The original question was that the motion be agreed to, to which the honourable member for Dawson has moved an amendment. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
All those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary, no. Honourable members, I think the noes have it. I was going to call a division for one minute; I think we will call a division for four minutes, given the amount of time that has elapsed, and that might assist the House in other ways. Ring the bells for four minutes. A division having been called and the bells being rung—
The Leader of the House on a point of order during the division.
Mr Speaker, apropos of the obvious mistake on the part of the opposition in asking for a pair for Clare O'Neil, if they wish to have a pair for Clare O'Neil they can have one straight away right now. If they ask for one, they can have one. They haven't asked for one, and that's why they haven't got one.
I thank the—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
What they have done is a deliberate sting. It's a deliberate lie. It is outrageous and it is unparliamentary. But if they want leave, they can have it.
The Leader of the House has raised a point of order. As I have said, the matter of pairs—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting.
An honourable member interjecting—
No, I am addressing the House. I need to at least address your last point of order before I address the next one—if that's okay! The Leader of the House has pointed out the government's position with respect to pairs. As I have said, pairs are a matter for the whips. They are not a matter for the chair. We are in the middle of a division. The whips are here in the House and they are welcome to come to whatever arrangement they wish to.
An honourable member interjecting—
The Leader of the House had another point of order that I said I would hear, unless he has completed.
They may wish to ask the whip for the lead.
I thank the Leader of the House. The member for McMahon on a point of order.
A government member: Mr Speaker, they are the ones who have asked for a pairing arrangement.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The Treasurer will cease interjecting.
A government member: If you don't want a pairing arrangement, that's your business.
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. I am trying to hear a point of order in a division where members do not have a microphone. My patience is being tried. The member for McMahon on a point of order.
A few moments ago, the Leader of the House made a grossly unparliamentary remark in relation to the Manager of Opposition Business which he should withdraw immediately on this first full sitting day.
The level of noise was so loud and I was—
Honourable members interjecting—
No! The member for McMahon and other members behind him will not seek to argue with me when I am addressing the House, or the member for McMahon won't be here. I am making that very clear. I have made it clear as politely as I can that the point of order was provocative and frivolous. I am unhappy about it because the point of order was one for which the Manager of Opposition Business knows the chair has no responsibility—no responsibility whatsoever. It was provocative and lead to gross disorder by a number of members. If you want me to take action on all of them I will, but you will find that there will not be 148 people here on the first day. What I have decided to do is to move on with the motions before the House and to deal with the business.
The original question was that the motion be agreed to, to which the honourable member for Dawson has moved an amendment. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.
The motion that is now before the parliament is one that can only be understood as a—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House?
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Before I call the member for McMahon, I am going to make a statement to the House, given the point of order and the subsequent discussion regarding pairs. I make it very clear: there is no point of order that can be taken on pairs because there is no standing order that relates to pairs. These are informal arrangements between the parties; they are not the business of the Speaker. I am making it very clear, on this second day, that that is the case. If there is an argument about pairs, go and call a press conference and have your argument. You will not be having it in here.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Prime Minister and Treasurer have for months railed against reforms to negative gearing;
(b) this morning, it has been revealed that the Prime Minister and Treasurer were in fact rolled in Cabinet on reforms to negative gearing by conservative Members in their party loyal to the Member for Warringah;
c) this is the first time in more than 40 years that a Prime Minister and Treasurer have been rolled on a central economic reform; and
d) if the Prime Minister and Treasurer can be rolled on an economic reform by factional forces then the Member for Warringah was right that "This government has been in office — not in power"; and
2. therefore, condemns the Prime Minister for failing to provide the new economic leadership he promised but instead being led by conservative Members of his party.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for McMahon from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Prime Minister and Treasurer have for months railed against reforms to negative gearing;
(b) this morning, it has been revealed that the Prime Minister and Treasurer were in fact rolled in Cabinet on reforms to negative gearing by conservative Members in their party loyal to the Member for Warringah;
c) this is the first time in more than 40 years that a Prime Minister and Treasurer have been rolled on a central economic reform; and
d) if the Prime Minister and Treasurer can be rolled on an economic reform by factional forces then the Member for Warringah was right that "This government has been in office — not in power"; and
2. therefore, condemns the Prime Minister for failing to provide the new economic leadership he promised but instead being led by conservative Members of his party.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
Is the motion seconded?
The Prime Minister is in office but not in power. The member for—
The Manager of Opposition Business needs to second the motion.
I second the motion. The member for Warringah is out of office but still in power.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The question is now that the motion by the member for McMahon be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, my government gets on with the job of delivering on important commitments we made to Australians at the election.
We are acting on the mandate we received from the Australian people.
And we ask the parliament and expect the parliament to respect that mandate.
We are at a critical juncture; the decisions we take today, the decisions of this parliament, will determine whether we enable our children and grandchildren to enjoy the same standard of living that we do ourselves.
I said during the election that we are focused on creating more and better jobs.
We are committed to ensuring our workplace relations system delivers the best outcome for jobs, investment and growth, stops unions from abusing their power, and allows Australians to go to safe workplaces, without fear of intimidation or coercion.
Today, I am implementing a vital legislative agenda, two elements of which were the very reason we went to the double dissolution election.
This agenda advances our economic plan while protecting people's rights.
This first bill the government is introducing is this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016. It honours our commitment to doing all we can to protect Australia's emergency services from a union takeover.
Australia's proud tradition of volunteer firefighting is under threat.
The actions of the United Firefighters Union have placed the Victorian Country Fire Authority in the position of having to choose between the best interests of its brave volunteers and conceding to the demands of the union.
Unfortunately for the proud volunteers of the CFA, the Victorian government has taken sides against them.
For this reason, it is of paramount importance that the Commonwealth parliament steps in to protect them.
This is not a decision we take lightly.
Obviously, there is a place for unions fairly to represent their members in Australia's workplace relations system.
However, the UFU continues to demand an unreasonable degree of control over the CFA and its volunteers.
The former CFA board repeatedly stated it was willing to reach a fair and reasonable agreement, but this call was ignored and the Victorian government demanded that the CFA accede to the union's demands.
The Victorian emergency services minister in the Labor government in Victoria resigned in protest.
The CFA board was then sacked by the Victorian government.
The CFA chief executive and the chief fire officer resigned in protest.
Even advice from the Chief Executive of Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria that the proposed agreement will significantly impede fire season operations has not altered the Andrews government's intransigence.
We will not allow selfless Australian volunteers to be undermined in this way.
The Victorian government has now hand-picked new appointments to the board to wave the agreement through.
The Victorian government's new board reached agreement with the union, having made some cosmetic changes to the agreement while not addressing the fundamental concerns of the volunteers.
The agreement still contains discriminatory terms and still interferes with the capacity of the CFA to manage its volunteers in a range of areas.
For example, the agreement mandates that a minimum of seven paid firefighters are dispatched before the paid firefighters commence firefighting operations.
Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria advise that this will have flow-on effects for workload, operational and fire ground safety implications for volunteers.
Other concerning terms in the agreement include:
I note that the agreement is seeking these changes despite the Victorian Country Fire Authority Act stating that:
The Parliament recognises that the Authority is first and foremost a volunteer-based organisation, in which volunteer officers and members are supported by employees in a fully integrated manner.
I also note that the CFA Volunteer Charter commits the Victorian government to:
Given that the government of Victoria has abdicated its authority on this matter and capitulated to the union, it is our duty to intervene to protect the efforts of our volunteers.
The CFA volunteers are the heroes of our regional communities.
They are everyday mums and dads committed to sacrificing their time to protect life and property.
The union is jeopardising this selfless goodwill.
It is an outrage.
Volunteers are the lifeblood of organisations like the CFA.
We simply cannot allow their hard work to be undermined.
There is a lot at stake if we do not protect our volunteers.
As the Chief Executive of Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria, Andrew Ford, has pointed out, if we allow the role of the volunteers to be eroded and demeaned, volunteers will walk away and the CFA will be destroyed.
This is why the government, my government, announced during the election campaign that we will amend the Fair Work Act to stop this happening.
This bill will ensure that enterprise agreements cannot be used in a way that permits unions to exert power over the valuable contributions of volunteers.
To do this, the bill expands the definition of unlawful term in the Fair Work Act to include an 'objectionable emergency management term'.
The new objectionable emergency management term will prohibit terms in enterprise agreements that:
The Fair Work Commission will not be able to approve agreements that include such terms.
Any such terms in an existing agreement will be legally ineffective from the day that the legislation commences operation.
Actions taken under existing agreements before this time will not be affected.
The amendments will also give volunteer organisations a voice, by providing them the right to make submissions to the Fair Work Commission about enterprise agreements covering certain emergency services bodies that could affect the volunteers that they represent.
The amendments have been carefully drafted to only apply to firefighting and state emergency service bodies that are established under a statute, use volunteers and are covered by the Fair Work Act.
They will not impact other volunteering organisations such as Surf Life Saving Australia or the Salvation Army.
The government has of course received the best expert legal advice to confirm the constitutional validity of these reforms, as we do for all bills we bring to the parliament.
The amendments are simple, targeted measures and it is vital that we implement this solution quickly.
We cannot afford to wait any longer.
We must act to safeguard the tens of thousands of volunteers who protect our communities.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction
The coalition government will always stand up for the rule of law.
Today I am re-presenting to the parliament—the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013—to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC).
This will ensure the rule of law prevails on building sites across the country.
A fair, safe and productive building and construction industry is crucial to the government's economic plan for jobs and growth.
Following the double dissolution election, which we called as a result of the Senate twice rejecting this legislation, we have a clear mandate to proceed with our election commitment to re-establish the ABCC.
Re-establishing the ABCC will boost economic growth and generate more jobs in the building and construction industry.
The building and construction industry is a key driver of growth and vital to the competitiveness and prosperity of the Australian economy.
As a sector, it is the nation's third largest employer.
One in every 10 Australian employees rely on this industry for jobs and income.
The building and construction sector accounts for around eight per cent of gross domestic product.
Unfortunately for too many years, the industry has provided the worst examples of illegal industrial behaviour, unnecessary disruption and unrest.
Two royal commissions have now identified systemic unlawful behaviour in the construction industry.
The sheer weight of evidence regarding this unlawful conduct is staggering.
The case for re-establishing the ABCC is stronger now than when the bill was first introduced in 2013.
As far back as 2003, the Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry documented a litany of examples of industrial relations lawlessness.
In its final report late last year, the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption presided over by former High Court Justice Dyson Heydon revealed nothing has changed.
The industry is still marred by illegal strikes, constant bullying, intimidation and thuggery.
Dozens of court decisions since 2005 have highlighted the lawless culture within the industry.
At the end of July 2016 there were 107 CFMEU officials and representatives either before the courts, the Fair Work Commission or both for breaches of industrial law.
The courts have imposed fines of over $8.25 million on the CFMEU and its officials.
However, clearly the current penalty levels are ineffective in deterring unlawful conduct by construction unions.
As the courts have noted, the CFMEU appears to regard financial penalties as 'simply a business cost like any other', and that 'there is plainly a need to impose punishment to deter the CFMEU and others like it from treating this country's industrial laws as little more than an annoyance'.
Details of the b ill
The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 is introduced in the same form as the bills which were voted down twice by the previous Senate.
The main object of this bill is to provide an improved workplace relations framework to ensure building and construction work is carried out fairly, efficiently and productively for the benefit of all building industry participants and for the benefit of the Australian economy as a whole.
The bill upholds and promotes respect for the rule of law and ensures respect for the rights of all building industry participants.
The bill includes the ability for the courts to impose significant penalties for individuals and organisations that participate in unlawful action.
The bill contains appropriate and effective safeguards to ensure due process.
The use of the ABCC's examination powers will continue to be reviewed and reported on by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
A re-established ABCC will also administer a building code that will govern industrial relations arrangements for government-funded projects.
This will ensure that the enterprise bargaining agreements and the conditions on government funded building sites are fair and that taxpayers' dollars are used efficiently.
An advance version of the code has been released.
The code is intended to formally commence at the same time as the re-established ABCC.
The government remains firmly committed to the twin goals of addressing lawlessness in the building and construction industry while also improving safety.
For this reason, the bill retains the role of the Federal Safety Commissioner and the Australian Government Building and Construction Work Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme.
There is strong evidence that the Federal Safety Commissioner has improved safety in the industry.
The majority of companies covered by the scheme have reported significant declines in injury rates.
Accredited companies have fewer fatalities—although, as we know, any fatality is one too many.
Myths
Regrettably, many falsehoods have been spread by building unions about the scope and intent of this legislation.
Even more regrettably, some of these falsehoods have been repeated by members and senators in the previous parliament.
They have suggested, wrongly, that bill would deny human rights and liberties, and that it will impact on safety and productivity.
These suggestions are not only far-fetched and fanciful but offensive.
I can assure the House that the bill contains no provisions that would prevent legitimate safety issues on building sites from being raised and addressed by employees, unions, or state and territory work health and safety regulators.
The concerns raised about the ABCC's use of compulsory examination powers are also not valid.
Powers of this kind are not novel.
They are available to a range of other Commonwealth regulatory bodies such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink and Medicare.
It has been said by the critics that productivity did not grow under the ABCC when it was extant.
Again, that is a falsehood.
In fact, when the ABCC existed, the economic and industrial performance of the building sector improved significantly. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data shows that, during the operation of the ABCC, labour productivity in the construction industry increased by 20 per cent.
In contrast, the market sector industries index increased by only 12 per cent.
The ABS data also shows that, following the abolition of the ABCC, both labour productivity and multifactor productivity in the construction sector remained flat. Conclusion
The coalition government is committed to doing all that is necessary to reform the building and construction industry to ensure the rule of law prevails in this sector.
Taxpayers, consumers, small businesses and workers will all benefit from the re-establishment of the ABCC.
Importantly, this bill encourages productivity and the pursuit of high levels of employment in the building and construction industry.
It will ensure that the government's policy to deliver the infrastructure of the 21st century is delivered on time and on budget.
This bill will create jobs and investment by ensuring employers and workers in the industry can get on with the job without fear of intimidation.
The government wholeheartedly believes that every worker in this country deserves to be able to go to work each day without fear of being harassed, intimidated or subjected to violence.
When the laws are not strong enough to deter unlawful behaviour, something is wrong and something needs to be done.
No person in Australia—man or woman—should have to work in an industry where the rule of law is routinely defied.
The Productivity Commission has pointed out that female participation in the industry has declined over the past two decades.
This is against the trend in most other industries.
It is hardly surprising that women might be hesitant about engaging in an industry where there is so much documented evidence of bullying and intimidation.
We hear repeatedly from those opposite excuses for the bad behaviour of the CFMEU.
The point they refuse to acknowledge is that the CFMEU's unlawful and damaging industrial disruption drives higher costs in the industry which, in turn, threatens our ability to fund construction of more schools, hospitals and other important social infrastructure.
Blockades and work stoppages cripple productivity and delay the delivery of important projects like the Commonwealth Games sites on the Gold Coast and the Lady Cilento Children's Hospital in Brisbane.
We also need to stop rogue union officials using safety as an industrial weapon. Safety on building sites is paramount and should not be undermined.
The coalition government will honour its commitment to the Australian people to restore the rule of law on our building sites.
This bill will ensure our construction industry is safe, productive and free of intimidation and harassment. This will create the conditions for Australians to get the infrastructure they need at a price we can afford.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I also introduce the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. This bill deals with consequential and transitional matters relating to the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and other matters set out in the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013.
This bill will ensure a smooth transition from the institutions, functions and powers created by the Fair Work Building Industry Act 2012 to the new arrangements established by the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. This bill also deals with residual operation of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 where necessary.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Since 2013, the coalition has sought repeatedly to honour the commitment it made to the Australian people to legislate to improve the governance and accountability of registered organisations—unions and employer organisations.
Sadly, this legislation was blocked by the previous Senate time and time again, and consequently was one of the reasons for July's double dissolution election.
We fought the double dissolution election on our industrial relations commitments—and won. Following our re-election we are therefore again seeking to honour our commitment to the Australian people by reintroducing the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill.
The case for reform is clear and compelling. Is there anyone who honestly believes the current governance provisions are doing the job? This parliament cannot ignore the reams of financial impropriety and gross breach of trust demonstrated by office holders of the Health Services Union, including former ALP National President Michael Williamson and former Labor member of parliament Craig Thomson.
Since then the evidence heard by the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption has made it abundantly clear that the Health Services Union officials' behaviour was not an isolated instance.
The final report of the royal commission outlines many appalling examples of misconduct in unions, together with many employers with which they deal.
What we find are grave failures of governance and a lack of accountability and transparency within Australia's workplaces and—in some cases—a deep-seated culture of lawlessness among union officials. The final report outlines allegations of bribery, extortion and payments being made in exchange for cutting workers' entitlements.
In a number of these cases, the misconduct occurred while the royal commission was ongoing. We saw cases of serious misconduct, such as the shameless misuse of members' funds by the NSW branch of the National Union of Workers, happening as recently as 2015—at a time when the registered organisations bill had twice been rejected by the Senate.
While the previous parliament was endlessly deliberating on passage of this important legislation, NUW officials saw fit to spend more than $100,000 of members' hard-earned money on holidays, toys, dating service subscriptions and even a tattoo.
No-one, including those opposite, can deny that there is a serious problem that needs to be urgently addressed. This conduct will continue unless something is done to stop it.
It is the interests of union members that are at stake—the interests of ordinary working men and women of Australia who have been so let down by so many officials of the union movement.
The government sincerely hopes that, following the double dissolution election and in light of the findings of the Heydon royal commission, members and senators in this new parliament will be convinced of the need for this legislation.
The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 4] is introduced in the same form as the bills which were voted down repeatedly by the previous parliament in 2015.
The bill contains measures designed to improve the standard of governance of registered organisations and deter wrongdoing. In short, these include:
To improve oversight of registered organisations, the bill will establish the Registered Organisations Commission, a dedicated watchdog with enhanced powers to monitor and regulate registered organisations.
Members of registered organisations—and the broader community—have a right to expect that any wrongdoing is identified quickly and dealt with swiftly.
This bill will strengthen existing financial transparency obligations of registered organisations and officers and align them with obligations that currently apply to companies and company directors.
Some registered organisations control revenue and assets worth many millions of dollars. These are businesses controlling significant amounts of money and should be regulated appropriately.
Registered organisations will need to disclose remuneration paid to their top five officers in the head office and any branches. Officers will be required to disclose their material personal interests to the committee of management.
Officers will not be able to make decisions on matters where they have a disclosed interest—addressing obscene situations like the two former Transport Workers' Union heads who signed off on using members' funds to buy themselves two luxury Ford F50 utes, at more than $150,000 each.
These same officials then saw fit to vote in a generous new redundancy policy, which led to a payout of nearly half a million dollars for one of them less than six months later.
Remember, we are talking about the membership money of hardworking Australians. This bill seeks to give those union members a fair deal.
These measures, however, will have little impact if the penalties for wrongdoing are not high enough to act as a deterrent.
The current penalties do not fit the gravity of the offences. For this reason the bill introduces higher civil penalties and a range of criminal penalties for organisations and officials who are found by courts to have done the wrong thing.
These penalties are consistent with those faced by companies and directors who break the law. There should be no difference between the penalties imposed when a company director misuses shareholders' funds and when a registered organisation official misuses members' money.
Criminal penalties are being introduced for reckless or intentionally dishonest breaches of officers' duties. Broadly, these offences relate to officers and employees of registered organisations who fail to exercise their powers or discharge duties in good faith and for a proper purpose. They also apply where an officer uses his or her position—or information obtained while an officer—to improperly gain advantage for themselves or someone else.
Criminal sanctions will also apply where an officer does not comply with the commission's new investigation powers. These sanctions align with the penalties that apply to noncompliance with an ASIC investigation and will ensure that officers of registered organisations take their obligations seriously.
Some registered organisations have expressed concern that the new penalties will discourage people from taking on official responsibilities. If that is the case, it is a sad reflection on those organisations. But, quite frankly, I do not believe it.
It is very simple: no wrongdoing, no penalty. The only people who have anything to fear are those who do the wrong thing.
Those officers who operate within the law—and I believe this is the majority of officers—have nothing to fear. Rather, they should be comforted in knowing that unlawful behaviour will be dealt with, thus ensuring ongoing members' confidence in registered organisations as a whole.
The government acknowledges that registered organisations play an important role in the affairs of workplace relations in this nation and in our broader economy.
Registered organisations are given special privileges under the Fair Work scheme. Additionally, just like charities and our cultural and sporting associations, they are income tax exempt. With these privileges come countervailing responsibilities.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of Australian workers pay hard-earned wages as union dues; similarly, Australian businesses—both small and large—pay membership fees to employer organisations.
Workers and businesses invest a great deal of trust in the organisations that represent their interests. They are entitled to expect that these registered organisations operate to the highest standards. This bill ensures that they will do so.
The government has an unambiguous mandate from the Australian people to ensure that registered organisations act in a transparent and accountable manner.
It is clear that the corrupt and illegal conduct of many union officials will continue unless there is immediate and effective parliamentary intervention, meaningful reform and strong leadership.
It is our hope that this new parliament will understand the urgent need to act and honour the judgment of the Australian people. We have made it very clear that we stand for a clean, honest and strong union movement. Our commitment to reform is absolutely unwavering.
I call on all other members to support honest union members and honest union officials by supporting this bill.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia's rural industries are among the most innovative and productive in the world. Continued investment in rural research and development (R&D) is vital to ensure ongoing growth and improvement in the profitability and competitiveness of Australia's agriculture, fisheries, forestry and food sectors. In recognition of this, the Australian government works with industry to co-invest in research through our world-leading rural R&D system.
Much of this work is delivered through the 15 rural research and development corporations, known as RDCs. RDCs provide a mechanism for industry to come together and invest collectively in R&D. The government assists by establishing and collecting a levy on behalf of an industry, if an industry requests this. The government also matches an RDC's eligible R&D spending up to a legislated cap. It is estimated that for every dollar that the government invests in rural R&D, farmers generate a $12 return over 10 years.
Feedback from primary producers is an integral part of how RDCs work. RDCs are required to consult with industry on their activities, and to give those who fund the research, via levies, an opportunity to provide input into the strategic direction of the corporation.
Numerous reviews and inquiries, including the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's inquiries titled Industry structures and systems governing levies on grass-fed cattle,and Industry structures and systems governing the imposition of and disbursement of marketing and R&D levies in the agricultural sector, have identified improved consultation with levy payers as key to the ongoing strength of Australia's rural R&D system. Several of these inquiries recommended that the establishment of levy payer registers would offer a way for RDCs to consult more effectively with the primary producers who fund them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, might I say at this point in time: I congratulate you on your first role as the Deputy Speaker in the chair. Well done! And you are a person who would understand levies better than most, especially the Grains Research and Development Corporation, given your previous life as a farmer.
The government agrees that levy payers should have more of a say in how their levy funds are spent. RDCs should know who their levy payers are. Levy payer registers would provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with levy payers on research priorities and levy expenditure, and to accurately and efficiently allocate voting entitlements for polls, where this is relevant.
This bill makes possible the establishment of levy payer registers by RDCs by amending the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. As it stands, the act only permits the distribution of levy payer information to the wool and dairy RDCs. This bill remedies this by allowing the government to provide levy payer information, for the purposes of a levy payer register, to the 13 other RDCs.
The bill removes the legislative impediment to the development of levy payer registers. However, recognising that a 'one size fits all' approach would not be appropriate given the diversity of Australian agricultural industries, the bill allows for the distribution of levy payer information to an RDC to occur only where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests it, and that request is approved by the minister. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources would then work with the RDC on the administrative design and development of a register. This is consistent with the government's approach to the broader R&D levy system, which is centred on industry support.
The bill also allows the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to permit levy payer information to be provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is consistent with the Australian government's Public Data Policy Statement, which commits to securely share data between Australian government entities, and to improve efficiencies and inform policy development and decision-making.
The bill maintains current practices for distribution of the name and address of the person or body that lodges levy returns with the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, to RDCs, industry representative bodies, and others. In limited situations, the person that lodges returns is also the levy payer (for example, in the turf industry).
The bill does not permit disclosure of information included in a levy payer register by an RDC or the ABS to a third party, except in limited circumstances and where expressly permitted by the Secretary in writing. This aims to protect the integrity and security of levy and charge payers' personal information.
Where an eligible recipient is permitted to disclose levy payer information to a third party, that person or body may only use the information for restricted purposes relating to R&D, marketing, biosecurity or the National Residue Survey, or in connection with any activity carried out by the RDC for the benefit of producers in the industry it serves.
Where levy payer contact details are to be provided to an industry representative body, the administrative arrangements will enable levy payers to choose to opt out and not receive information.
The passage of this bill is the first key step in allowing for the development of levy payer registers, making it possible for the RDCs to identify and connect directly with those who fund their work.
Through greater levy payer engagement in the R&D system, RDCs will be able to better align research investments to industry priorities—improving returns to primary producers and contributing to a more profitable, competitive and sustainable agricultural sector, and always making sure they target bringing a better return back to the farm gate.
We will work with the RDCs and industry to make this happen.
The government is committed to an Australian R&D system that remains transparent, consultative and delivers tangible benefits to Australia's agricultural industries into the future.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, and congratulations. I move:
That the debate now be adjourned.
Question agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker, can I add my congratulations to you on your elevation to this role. As a fellow member of the class of 2007, it is great to see you having risen to that role. Congratulations to you and all your family, and to your constituents, who I know would be very supportive and would want to congratulate you as well.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Morrison.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill containing 24 measures and totalling more than $6 billion in savings is part of the Turnbull government's $40 billion in budget improvement measures that the government will be seeking to legislate over the coming months, including some $25 billion in expenditure savings.
As a government we inherited, back in 2013, $240 billion in accumulated deficits and a debt of $317 billion projected to increase to $667 billion within 10 years.
Our gross debt is increasing by $6 billion a month or $1.4 billion per week in 2016-17, and in that year will increase by around $72 billion.
Since MYEFO 2013-14, the government has taken action and we have implemented measures to improve the budget bottom line which has reduced projected debt by $55 billion, however our debt today still stands at $430 billion.
The interest payments on our debt total some $16 billion this year, and it is one of the largest line items in the budget and it is still growing.
To arrest our debt—and that is our challenge: to arrest the debt—we must restore the budget to balance. The Turnbull government remains committed to this very important task.
Our attempts to return the budget to balance over recent years have proven very difficult and have faced significant opposition.
During the last parliament, while we were facing these deficits we inherited from the previous government, the Labor opposition engaged in budget sabotage, refusing to support the government on significant savings, measures such as abolishing the schoolkids bonus and to make fair and sustainable changes to the pension assets test. The opposition opposed these measures right up to the election campaign, giving the community the expectation that they would reverse these savings if they were elected over the entire course of that parliamentary term after those measures were introduced.
However during the campaign, we know, the opposition accepted that these measures were unaffordable and in a humiliating back down that exposed their cynical tactic of budget sabotage chose to support those measures at the eleventh hour.
It is clear that a stronger budget not only supports jobs and growth, but also instils confidence as our economy continues to transition.
Working towards balancing the budget will help restore the buffers that protect Australia against economic shocks and uncertainties, as well as safeguard against events that could threaten our future success. It is key to our economic resilience in these uncertain times.
Repairing the budget means we can begin to pay down the debt and reduce the debt burden, the fiscal burden, on future generations.
As we make crucial repairs to fix the budget, we will create headroom to further ease the tax burden to enable us to invest in new priorities.
You don't encourage growth by taxing it more as those opposite propose to do. That is why we have consistently rejected the opposition's tax-and-spend approach. In order to repair the budget and arrest growth in public debt, you must get expenditure under control.
Ratings agencies have all warned that they want to see budget measures passed or this will increase the risk of a ratings downgrade. They have expressed serious doubt about whether this parliament will be up to that task.
If this parliament fails to pass any budget savings and revenue measures, Treasury estimates our gross debt would exceed $1 trillion—one thousand billion dollars—in a decade. This is a worst-case scenario; this is the do-nothing scenario; it is a scenario that this parliament must ensure can never be realised.
This bill simply brings forward and outlays savings measures that were incorporated into Labor's fiscal projections at the last election. No more; no less.
We are strongly asking the opposition to vote for measures they promised to support at the last election, by including them in their own fiscal estimates that they presented at that election.
This bill is part of a concerted strategy to make immediate and tangible headway towards balancing the budget; the consequences for the budget and the nation's debt are stark. Indicative projections from Treasury indicate that if the $6.1 billion of savings over the forward estimates contained in this omnibus bill are not passed, then gross debt, as a direct result of that failure to pass these measures in particular, is projected to increase by more than $30 billion by 2026-27 compared to projections that are contained in the 2016-17 budget.
The opposition should honour their commitments in the election to support these savings measures that they included in their own budget costings during the election. The passage of this bill is a first step in implementing critical savings to repair the budget.
Let me now turn to each of the measures contained in this rather voluminous bill.
Higher education
On higher education, we are introducing a new minimum repayment threshold for all HELP debts from 1 July 2018.
We are replacing the Higher Education Grants Index (HEGI) with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in order to streamline and simplify indexation rates for government programs.
And we will remove the HECS-HELP benefit from 1 July next year.
These measures were all included in Labor's forward estimates at the election.
Health
Health is also an area of rapidly growing expenditure and an important area of service to our community.
In order to restrain spending growth we are extending the pause on indexing the income thresholds for the Medicare levy surcharge and private health insurance rebate for a further three years—from July 2018 to 30 June 2021.
We are abolishing the National Health Performance Authority.
We are replacing the Child Dental Benefits Schedule with the Child and Adult Public Dental Scheme.
A measure to improve compliance in aged-care providers will amend the Aged Care Act 1997 to strengthen compliance powers and implement deregulation measures.
These measures were all included in Labor's forward estimates that they took to the election.
The government will continue to provide record levels of investment in Medicare and hospitals, whilst targeting health expenditure to where it is needed and most effective.
Welfare
One of the most difficult challenges facing the budget is reining in the growth in welfare expenditure. Welfare makes up a third of outlays in the budget. So the largest share of these savings measures is also in welfare spending.
We are removing the grandfathering arrangements for student payment recipients of the student start-up scholarship, from 1 July 2017.
We are removing the family member exemptions to the newly arrived residents waiting period for access to social security payments and concession cards.
We will cease the job commitment bonus for long-term unemployed youth.
We are introducing an interest charge on the debts of former recipients of social welfare payments who are unwilling to enter repayment arrangements.
We are bringing in departure prohibition orders for people who are not in repayment arrangements for their social welfare debts, and removing the six-year limitation on debt recovery for all social welfare debt.
We will include income from parental leave pay and dad and partner pay when calculating income support payments for children born or adopted from 1 October this year.
We are changing the way fringe benefits are treated under income tests for family assistance and youth income support payments.
These measures will help ensure that the welfare system is fair and people in similar financial circumstances receive similar welfare benefits.
From January next year, new claims for carer allowance will not be backdated up to 12 weeks.
We are maintaining the higher income free threshold of family tax benefit part A for a further two years to make sure family payments are targeted and sustainable.
We will align the pension means testing arrangements with residential aged-care arrangements. This measure removes poorly targeted exemptions that are associated with the pensioner's former home, and are only available to pensioners who pay their aged-care accommodation costs in periodic payments.
We will remove current income test exemptions for parents in employment nil-rate periods. This makes the payments system fairer and more sustainable.
Social security payments will no longer be paid to certain people who are in psychiatric confinement because they have been charged with a serious offence.
Carbon tax compensation will be closed to new welfare recipients as we will no longer compensate people for a tax that no longer exists and that this government abolished. People who enter the welfare system before 20 September 2016 will be grandfathered and continue to receive the compensation. There will be a transition arrangement in place, which will mean that people who enter the welfare system between 20 September 2016 and 20 March 2017 will temporarily receive the compensation until 20 March 2017. The government will ensure that those impacted by the transition are aware that they will only receive the compensation temporarily until 20 March 2017.
All of these welfare measures were included in Labor's forward estimates, which they took to the election.
The government remains committed to ensuring the welfare system continues to provide a welfare safety net for Australia's most vulnerable people and families.
Other measures
Finally, the other measures include savings from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency; and reducing the rates of tax offsets—refundable and non-refundable—for research and development, intended to incentivise research in Australia that would not otherwise be conducted.
The single-touch payroll reporting measure creates a new modern regime for reporting payroll and superannuation information to the ATO. Employers will automatically report PAYG withholding and superannuation guarantee contributions at the time these amounts are paid through SBR-enabled software.
Under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 we are creating a single appeal path that will simplify and streamline the appeal process.
Again, all of these measures were included in Labor's forward estimates, which they took to the election.
Concluding remarks
Of course, there is more work to be done than what is contained in this bill. This is just the first step, in this new parliament, to demonstrate our collective resolve to arrest the debt.
That is why the government is continuing to implement the measures that improve the bottom line that it took to the election—around $40 billion in this bill and in other measures; $25 billion of those specifically in payment savings.
I cannot make this clearer: the government is committed to securing the passage of these measures. As I indicated earlier the consequences for the budget and the nation's debt are stark. Indicative projections from Treasury indicate that if the $6.1 billion of savings over the forward estimates in the omnibus bill are not passed, gross debt is projected to increase by more than $30 billion by 2026-27 compared to projections at the 2016-17 budget.
We therefore call on the opposition—who included all of these measures in the handshake deal they made with the Australian people when they included these measures in their promise of how they would conduct fiscal policy—to honour their commitments at the election to support these savings measures.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will increase the rate of excise duty on tobacco by way of four annual increases of 12.5 per cent a year. The first of these changes will occur on 1 September 2017.
This bill aims to increase the price of cigarettes via taxation, which research has shown is one of the most effective ways of reducing tobacco consumption and preventing the uptake of smoking. Higher prices encourage smokers to quit or reduce their consumption while also discouraging potential smokers, including young Australians, from taking up the habit.
This is an important change as smoking remains a significant health problem in Australia. Recent research has shown that up to 1.8 million people, around two-thirds of Australia's smokers, will die from smoking related causes if they continue to smoke.
These excise increases will bolster the government's broader tobacco strategy, which uses a variety of policy interventions, to minimise the prevalence of smoking.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will increase the rate of excise equivalent customs duties on tobacco by way of four annual increases of 12.5 per cent a year. The first of these changes will occur on 1 September 2017.
The government is committed to improving health outcomes for all Australians and in particular to combating the health implications of smoking.
Recent research has shown that up to 1.8 million people, around two-thirds of Australia's smokers, will die from smoking related causes if they continue to smoke.
One of the most effective ways to reduce the rate of smoking is a program of education combined with an increase in the price of cigarettes. Increases in tobacco excise over the last two decades have contributed to significant declines in the number of people smoking daily.
This bill supports the government's efforts to decrease tobacco consumption and limit the uptake of smoking.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Firstly, Deputy Speaker Coulton, may I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to your new role. I am sure you will bring to the role a very healthy dose of common sense and good humour and the personal integrity that you have demonstrated in your nine years as the member for Parkes. I sincerely wish you well in your new role in the House.
I move:
That this bill be now be read a second time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2016-2017 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 form the principal bills underpinning the Government's Budget. Together with the supply acts passed by the parliament earlier this year, these bills provide appropriations for the full year of 2016-17.
These bills are substantively the same as the bills of the same names that were introduced into the previous parliament in May this year. Minor changes have been made to reflect only new administrative arrangements and machinery of government changes.
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 seeks authority for meeting the expenses of the ordinary annual services of the government for 2016-17.
The bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $49 billion.
The provisions in the bill seek authority for appropriations broadly equivalent to 7/12ths of the estimated 2016-17 annual appropriations, plus budget measures. Together with Supply Act (No. 1) 2016-2017, this bill provides appropriations for the ordinary annual services of government for the full year of 2016-17.
I now outline four significant items provided for in this bill.
First, just under $18 billion is proposed for the Department of Defence to keep our nation safe and pursue our national interests. This includes just over $615 million in 2016-17 for military operations Okra, Accordion, Highroad, Resolute and Manitou.
Second, the Department of Education and Training would receive just under $1.3 billion. This includes funding to support the skills and training system; enhance Australia's science and research capacity; support families with flexible, accessible and affordable child care; and support the sustainable development of Australia's international education and research engagement.
Third, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development would receive just under $781 million in funding for 201617. This includes funding to support the Infrastructure Investment Program; support for transport programs, which includes the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme and the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme; grants to promote stable, secure and viable local and regional economies; and support for the Indian Ocean Territories and Norfolk Island.
Fourth, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation would receive just over $610 million in 2016-17 and the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation would receive just over $168 million in 2016-17 to continue to provide television, radio and online services.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio budget statements previously tabled in the parliament.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2016-2017, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, which was introduced just moments ago, and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, form the principal bills underpinning the government's budget. Together with the supply acts passed by the parliament earlier this year, these bills provide appropriations for the full year of 2016-17.
These bills are substantively the same as the bills of the same names that were introduced into the previous parliament in May this year. Minor changes have been made to reflect only new administrative arrangements and machinery of government changes.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2016-2017 seeks authority for appropriations that are not for the ordinary annual services of government for 2016-17, such as for capital works and services and payments to states, territories and local governments.
This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $9 billion.
The provisions in the bill seek authority for appropriations broadly equivalent to 7/12ths of the estimated 2016-17 annual appropriations, plus budget measures. Together with Supply Act (No. 2) 2016-2017, this bill provides appropriations that are not for the ordinary annual services of government for the full year of 2016-17.
I now outline four significant items provided for in this bill.
First, the Department of Communications and the Arts would receive just under $4.9 billion in 2016-17. This is required to provide equity funding to NBN Co. to continue to roll out the national broadband network.
Second, the Department of Defence would receive just under $1.4 billion, which includes an additional $700 million in 2016-17, to support the defence strategy and capability plans detailed in the 2016 defence white paper.
Third, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development would receive just under $544 million in 2016-17. This would be used to support Roads to Recovery to help local governments and councils maintain Australia's roads; drought communities programs; preparatory works on Western Sydney Airport; and, an equity injection for the Moorebank Intermodal Company.
Fourth, just over $310 million is proposed for the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. This includes $50 million in concessional loan funding in 2016-17 to establish the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. Loans would be provided to the states and territories to support major water infrastructure projects.
The bill also provides the debit limit for the Nation-building Funds, the Building Australia Fund and the Education Investment Fund; the general purpose financial assistance payments; and, the national partnership payments. The debit limits relate to the estimated expenditure after November 2016.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the bill and the portfolio budget statements previously tabled in the parliament. I thank the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 provides appropriations for the remainder of 2016-17 for the operations of:
This bill is substantively the same as the bill of the same name that was introduced into the previous parliament in May this year.
Together with Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No. 1) 2016-2017, this bill provides appropriations for the expenditure of the parliamentary departments for the full year of 2016-17.
The provisions in the bill seek authority for appropriations broadly equivalent to seven-twelfths of the estimated 2016-17 annual appropriation, plus budget measures.
This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $147 million.
The Department of Parliamentary Services would receive just over $25 million to maintain the integrity and amenity of Parliament House.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio budget statements previously tabled in the parliament. I thank the House.
Debate adjourned.
Congratulations upon your position, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton—a very good neighbour of mine in western New South Wales. I present the National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 and the explanatory memorandum.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016creates a new legislative framework for the establishment and ongoing management of cancer-screening registers.
The need for this bill arose from the coalition's federal budget 2015-16 announcement to improve cancer detection, treatment and prevention through innovative measures that ensure Australia remains a world leader in the field.
Australia continues to have one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world and this government is committed to improving health outcomes in this area through early detection. Bowel cancer is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in Australia with approximately 4,000 Australians dying each year—that is around 80 deaths each week. The risk of bowel cancer increases from the age of 50, yet if detected and managed early, nine out of 10 cases can be successfully treated. Currently, fewer than 40 per cent of bowel cancers are detected early.
In a bid to fast-track the program and save more lives, this government also committed to delivering an expanded National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. This program expansion means Australians aged 50 to 74 years will receive a free, at-home, bowel cancer screening kit every two years by 2020, instead of 2034. That is 14 years earlier than was planned under the previous government. Evidence from clinical trials has shown that biennial screening using faecal occult blood testing can prevent 300 to 500 deaths per year.
Fast-tracking the bowel-screening program will also take the pressure off our health system by providing early detection that enables simpler treatment and better survival. Advanced bowel cancer treatment is estimated to cost our health system $66,000 per case compared to $2,000 to remove precancerous polyps.
Approval has been given for the renewal of the National Cervical Screening Program, which will increase cervical cancer survival rates through an evidence-based pathway backed by research undertaken by the Medical Services Advisory Committee.
The Australian government is serious about increasing the number of Australians that participate in cancer screening as part of the fight against cancer. Cervical cancer claims the lives of 250 women annually and yet it is one of the most preventable cancers. Currently 80 per cent of women diagnosed with cervical cancer have not been screened or have not had regular screening.
The changes to the National Cervical Screening Program from 1 May 2017 will introduce a more effective cervical cancer test, the human papillomavirus (HPV) test, to replace the current two-yearly Pap test. The new test detects HPV infection—which is almost always the first step in developing cervical cancer—before abnormal cell changes occur. As the HPV test will only be required every five years, the number of invasive procedures during a woman's lifetime will reduce from 26 to just nine.
The HPV test will be available on the Medicare Benefits Schedule from 1 May 2017.
Since its inception in 1991, the National Cervical Screening Program has effectively halved the mortality and morbidity of cervical cancer. Through the rollout of the new screening pathway, current estimates suggest that there will be a further decrease in the mortality and morbidity by at least 15 per cent.
Importantly, key activities will also be delivered to support the renewed National Cervical Screening Program, including workforce change strategies, clinical management guidelines, a quality management framework and a communication strategy.
Australia seeks to connect its health system to deliver better, safer, efficient care now and into the future. With the recent investments in cancer prevention and detection, it is important that the organised approach to population-based screening is underpinned by a consistent and contemporary national register to monitor and support timely activity. There are significant efficiencies that can be gained by establishing the National Cancer Screening Register that will not only support both the renewal of the National Cervical Screening Program and the expansion of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, but potentially other cancer-screening programs in the future. By 2020, the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program will be inviting about four million Australians to screen each year and could detect approximately 3,500 potential bowel cancers each year.
The bill provides a principles-based legislative framework to support the government's policy objectives of supporting Australia's health system to meet current and future challenges. The bill lays the foundation for future work to move towards a national integrated system that captures and reports on individuals' screening test results and the results of relevant follow-up procedures, up to and including the diagnosis with cancer or a precursor to cancer.
The bill provides for the establishment of the register and authorises the collection, and use of information for the purposes of the register and specified other purposes, such as providing healthcare to an individual.
The government is keenly aware that the register will hold sensitive information. The bill protects the personal information of individuals by prohibiting the collection, use or disclosure of personal information in the register outside of the circumstances set out in the bill. The limited authorisations in the bill ensure that personal information is only collected, recorded, used or disclosed to or from the register for specific purposes. The bill also creates an offence arising from the unauthorised collection, use or disclosure of personal information contained in the register.
Establishing the register involves large-scale data migration and merging to create a national database of records for cancer-screening information. The bill will allow Medicare enrolment and claims data and healthcare identifiers for individuals and healthcare providers to be collected by the register for the initial system build as well as on an ongoing basis, all appropriately protected by privacy and secrecy provisions.
The bill authorises collection of HPV vaccination status from the HPV register so that individuals' cervical screening information in the register will also include their HPV vaccination status.
Currently there are eight separate state and territory cervical screening registers and an outdated, paper-based bowel-screening register which has created a fragmented system. The bill removes obstacles associated with migrating state and territory cervical screening data by providing the authority to transfer data to the register. This is important to ensure Australians do not miss vital cancer-screening checks that could save their lives.
However, the bill also appropriately includes provisions allowing individuals to opt off participation in the register according to the individual's preference, in keeping with the fundamental privacy tenet of giving people the right to exercise control over how their identity is used and disclosed and to make choices about what works for them.
The bill includes mandatory reporting of cancer-screening information of a prescribed type. Mandatory reporting obligations will ensure routine, timely collection of information which is crucial for the screening processes and follow-up clinical pathways, particularly where there is an adverse screening result. The details of the reporting obligations, including who is obliged to report and what information is to be reported in what time frames, will be prescribed in the rules.
The National Cancer Screening Register will be on the cutting edge of innovation. It will provide an ICT platform incorporating themes of accessibility and usability capable of integrating with the My Health Record system and Health's electronic data warehouse with the ability to be expanded to support other cancer-screening programs in the future. The register will be able to inter-operate with clinical information systems to enable healthcare providers to provide data to the register easily and receive information back easily to better inform clinical decision-making.
The register will support the cancer-screening pathways by facilitating invitations, sending out test kits and recall of participants where they agree. It will enable improved software integration with general practice, specialists and pathology laboratories. It will improve quality and accessibility of data, as well as the timeliness of data capture and data matching. The register's prime focus is on maintaining a complete and consolidated source of screening information for participating individuals. Over time, it will help increase program participation rates and the effectiveness of the screening programs and support the health system by informing policy for the national screening programs and service delivery at the local level.
This government takes privacy seriously and is committed to protecting the privacy of personal information—especially in this technological and information age. The bill establishes a robust framework for managing the data collected by the register, including protections and penalties against unauthorised collection, use and disclosure.
It should be noted that, apart from the protections and restrictions in the legislation, the register operator will comply with a strict services agreement to build and operate the register in accordance with data security requirements.
The register will be built in accordance with Commonwealth cybersecurity guidelines for new ICT infrastructure, taking into consideration sensitivity and classification of the information it stores and ensuring compliance with all legal and legislative requirements applicable to the processing of and access to health data including the Privacy Act 1988. The register will have extensive cybersecurity protections so that it is not vulnerable to external threats. It will be subject to IT security compliance activities in accordance with government policies.
The register will be operated from within Australia and all data will be stored onshore in secure data storage facilities that meet government requirements for storage and management of personal information. The Commonwealth will be the custodian of data in the register.
With the passage of the legislation, the register will commence operation on 20 March 2017 to support the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, and from 1 May 2017 it will support the renewed National Cervical Screening Program. Passage of the bill is required by September 2016 to enable data migration of state and territory cervical screening registers to the register, followed by data cleansing and system testing in time for a fully operational national register by this date.
A number of amendments to other legislation are required once the bill receives royal assent to enable certain information to be provided to the register, such as Medicare data and HPV vaccination status. These are described in the National Cancer Screening Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016.
This bill will serve to benefit the health of Australians through more efficient cervical and bowel screening pathways—made possible by the establishment of a national register. It will assist general practitioners and healthcare providers in their clinical decision-making and contribute to cancer detection, treatment and prevention.
This bill is also another example of the Turnbull government's commitment to ensuring all Australians have access to affordable, universal healthcare.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill provides for the consequential and transitional provisions required to support the operation of the National Cancer Screening Register.
The National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 and the National Cancer Screening Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016 will establish the National Cancer Screening Register (the register), authorise collection, use and disclosure of information for the purposes of the register, authorise the migration of state and territory cervical screening data to the register and mandate reporting of screening information to the register to facilitate clinical decision-making. The designated cancers for the purpose of the NCSR bills are cervical cancer and bowel cancer.
A number of amendments to other legislation are required once the National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 receives royal assent to enable certain information to be provided to the register. These are described in the National Cancer Screening Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016.
Amendments will be made to the Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015andthe Health Insurance Act 1973 to facilitate the provision of information to the register.
Schedule 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982(the FOI Act) will be amended to allow protected information in the register to be exempt from disclosure under section 38 of the FOI Act in response to an FOI request. This amendment will add the offence for unauthorised disclosure of protected information in the National Cancer Screening Register Bill to the list of secrecy provisions recognised for the purposes of subsection 38(1) of the FOI Act. Protected information for the purposes of the NCSR bills includes personal information in the register, or derived from personal information in the register.
This amendment to the FOI Act is important for ensuring there is no unnecessary intrusion on an individual's privacy arising from FOI requests. While the existing exemption in section 47F of the FOI Act prevents unreasonable disclosure of personal information, it is a conditional exemption subject to a public interest test. The amendment to the FOI Act will unconditionally exempt disclosure of protected personal information in the register in response to an FOI request.
The Health Insurance Act 1973 will be amended to enable the ongoing provision of Medicare enrolment and claim data to the register. This information will be used as part of the process for determining the individuals who are to be invited or not invited, as appropriate, to participate in the cervical cancer and bowel cancer screening programs.
The Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015 will be amended to authorise the disclosure of information kept on the Australian Immunisation Register to the National Cancer Screening Register. This will allow for human papillomavirus vaccination status to be included in an individual's record on the register.
This bill authorises the disclosure of information from prescribed cervical screening registers to the register. This will facilitate the transfer of information from the state and territory based cervical screening registers to the National Cancer Screening Register without the states and territories being required to amend their legislation to authorise that transfer.
The bill provides for the civil penalty for failure to comply with mandatory reporting obligations to commence on 1 May 2018, allowing a 12-month grace period after commencement of the register to give healthcare providers time to transition to the new mandatory reporting scheme.
The provisions in this bill will commence at the same time as the National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 commences. However, if that bill does not commence, the provisions in this bill do not commence at all.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill will establish a new ongoing special account that will assist the Commonwealth to meet future financial commitments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The special account will be known as the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account and was, indeed, announced in the 2016-17 budget by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund measure.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (known as the NDIS) is one of the largest social and economic policy reforms in Australian history. The NDIS supports Australians who are born with, or acquire, a permanent and significant disability before the age of 65 to lead a more independent and inclusive life.
The NDIS provides this support by assisting people with disabilities to meet the costs associated with their conditions. Importantly, the scheme empowers people with disabilities to make their own decisions about how they are supported.
NDIS trials are well underway across Australia. At the completion of the trials at the end of June 2016, there were around 30,000 people with disability participating in the scheme. On 1 July 2016, the NDIS commenced its transition phase, beginning a large-scale, staggered expansion that will see it fully rolled out in every state and territory, with the exception at this stage of Western Australia. The target for that expansion is 30 June 2019.
By 2019–20, we estimate the NDIS will be supporting around 460,000 Australians with disability. At that time, the NDIS will be injecting $22 billion each year into the Australian economy.
The NDIS provides the support directly to each eligible person, rather than to a service provider to then deliver the required support. As a result, the NDIS will also change structurally the landscape of the disability sector. New opportunities will be created by empowering people with disability. A new source of demand will be created within the wider economy for disability support services. As the scheme grows, it will create a national market for care and support based on empowerment, choice and control—a market that drives innovation and creates greater efficiencies and effectiveness in service delivery.
The Productivity Commission concluded that, over time, the economic benefits of the NDIS will outweigh its costs and will add close to one per cent to GDP. The NDIS therefore is not merely good for people with disability, it is good for the Australian economy and it will drive jobs growth over the long term.
In 2019–20, the NDIS reaches 'full scheme'. At that point, there will be $22 billion worth of allocated funding. The Commonwealth's share of the total funding will be around $11.2 billion per year, commencing in that year 2019-20. At that time, eligible people with disability who are currently receiving support through Commonwealth and state disability programs will be receiving support through the NDIS.
The government is fully committed to properly, adequately and sustainably funding the NDIS. It is for these reasons that the government is bringing forward the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account. The special account will give a clear line-of-sight of the funding set aside by government for the NDIS.
It is critical that the Commonwealth manages its funding in a way that is transparent and quantifiable, and meets the Commonwealth's funding commitments to ensure the NDIS is fully funded.
The government is 100 per cent committed to delivering and funding the NDIS in full. We have supported the NDIS from day one and this special account demonstrates in clear terms that ongoing commitment.
In addition to this special account, the Commonwealth is redirecting existing disability-related spending and the DisabilityCare Australia Fund toward the cost of the NDIS full rollout. In 2019–20:
In total, the Commonwealth will direct $6.8 billion from these sources to the NDIS. Because of the failure of the previous Labor government to specifically set aside funding for the NDIS, this will leave a funding shortfall of $4.4 billion from full scheme rollout in 2019–20 onwards, which this government will meet.
While the Medicare levy is an important contribution to the NDIS, it only provides a portion of the Commonwealth's annual new contributions to the NDIS at full scheme.
It falls to this government to set aside the remainder, which equates to $4.4 billion funding shortfall in 2019-20, which shortfall grows quickly to over $5 billion in future years.
This special account is the mechanism for securing that funding shortfall. It is proof of the responsible and sustainable way that this government follows through on its NDIS promises.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account, which will be created by this bill, will be in the form of a special account. The special account will be administered by the Department of Social Services, with its funding sitting within the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This will ensure that savings deposited into the special account are not returned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund itself and effectively lost for NDIS purposes.
The special account will allow the government, over future budgets, to identify savings from existing programs and set aside those savings to assist in meeting the Commonwealth's future financial commitments to the NDIS. Effectively, the Commonwealth will, over successive years, put aside savings that are clearly identified, quantified and defined so that the annual funding gap from 2019–20 is met within existing funding.
By clearly identifying savings in the special account, it will provide an enduring response to the concerns raised by the disability sector in relation to how the government will fund the shortfall for the NDIS. The previous government had identified some savings to assist in meeting the funding requirements of the NDIS from 2019–20. However, what savings were made were not set aside to meet future NDIS costs and were effectively lost for NDIS purposes.
The special account provides a sustainable way to meet the funding gap from 2019-20 onwards that does not require borrowings for the NDIS that would need to be paid back by future generations.
This bill gives the Commonwealth the flexibility to identify savings from any portfolio, not merely the Social Services portfolio. That approach will ensure that many areas of government contribute to supporting people with disability.
There will be an upper limit on the balance of the special account—it will only hold enough money to fund the future value of the Commonwealth's NDIS commitment. Over the next few years, savings can accumulate in the special account to meet future funding commitments. From 2019-20, when the NDIS reaches full scheme, if the balance of the special account becomes greater than required, the excess will be returned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Further, a review of the special account will be conducted in 2026–27.
Identification of savings to be deposited into the special account will be a decision of government. Those savings to be credited to the special account will be committed over a 10-year period. The quantum of individual savings will be consistent with the Budget Process Operational Rules. The Minister for Social Services will be the responsible minister, with responsibility for the policy and management of the special account.
The government will establish the special account with an opening balance of $343.7 million in 2016–17, from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and savings identified in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund measure announced in the 2016-17 Budget.
The government will make further deposits into the special account over the coming financial years.
In bringing this bill forward to create the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account, the government is providing a robust and enduring solution to meeting the Commonwealth's funding commitments for the NDIS.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The government has no greater responsibility than keeping Australia safe and secure. As a result, we have committed to strengthening Australia's aviation and maritime infrastructure against serious or organised crime. We will strengthen background checking regimes, to ensure that individuals who pose a security risk or have links to serious or organised crime cannot gain access to the security-sensitive areas of our airports and ports.
The bill I present today, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, will address these issues and will also ensure we keep illegal guns off our streets and our communities safe.
This bill was previously introduced into the House of Representatives on 11 February 2016. It passed the House on 16 March 2016, but lapsed at prorogation on 17 April 2016.
Following referral to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in the last parliament, the bill was recommended to progress to the Senate without amendment.
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has determined that organised crime groups are a threat to the Australian way of life, and estimate that organised crime costs the Australian economy $36 billion annually. In 2015, the government committed to a comprehensive package of action to tackle the growing problem in our communities of the crystalline form of methamphetamine (commonly known as the drug 'ice'). The National Ice Taskforce, in its final report released late 2015, estimated that there are currently well over 200,000 Australian users of the drug. This is a significant increase compared to the reported less than 100,000 users in 2007.
As a key priority, the National Ice Taskforce identified the need for targeted and coordinated law enforcement efforts to disrupt the supply of ice. Of note, was the recommendation that we harden the aviation and maritime environments against organised crime by strengthening the eligibility criteria for the aviation and maritime security identification card schemes (also known as the ASIC and MSIC schemes). This recommendation echoes those from several independent inquiries. These inquiries identified that the inadequacy of our aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious or organised crime, is an increasing risk to our communities.
The bill introduces the additional purpose to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 (as I will now refer to as the Aviation and Maritime Acts) of combating serious or organised crime at our airports and ports. The additional purpose will apply solely to the ASIC and MSIC schemes, adding to their current purpose of safeguarding against unlawful acts of interference with our aviation and maritime infrastructure.
The ASIC and MSIC schemes are an important part of securing the aviation, maritime and offshore oil and gas sectors. Under the schemes, any person with an operational need to remain unmonitored in security-sensitive areas at Australia's airports, ports, Australian flagged ships and offshore facilities, must hold a valid ASIC or MSIC confirming they have passed a background check.
The primary purpose of the background check is to establish whether an applicant poses a security threat to aviation and maritime infrastructure. However, this check does not currently consider whether the individual poses a serious criminal risk within the security-sensitive areas of our transport infrastructure. This bill will correct this by establishing the regulatory framework for introducing new eligibility criteria, which will be harmonised across both the ASIC and MSIC schemes.
The eligibility criteria under each scheme currently refer to a range of offences relevant to unlawful interference with aviation and maritime infrastructure as per the purpose of the existing Aviation and Maritime Acts. The criteria do not include offences arising from serious criminal activity, such as anti-gang or criminal organisation legislation, illegal sale and possession of firearms and other weapons, illegal importation of goods, or interfering with goods under Australian Border Force control. These will be included in the new harmonised eligibility criteria.
Under current eligibility criteria, an ASIC or MSIC applicant's status is based solely on the presence of a relevant offence in the applicant's criminal history. Under the new proposed criteria, less serious criminal offences will only become an aviation or maritime-security-relevant offence when a significant term of imprisonment has been imposed, while more serious offences will only require conviction. This approach places emphasis on the judgement of a court in determining the seriousness of the offence and hence its significance to the ASIC or MSIC scheme. This is a significant improvement to the transparency and accountability of the ASIC and MSIC schemes.
Shifting the focus from low level or minor criminal offences to higher risk offences is expected to provide positive employment outcomes because more applicants will be found initially eligible for an ASIC or MSIC. These applicants may be issued their ASIC or MSIC faster than current timeframes, reducing the impact to their employment and increasing the staff available to employers. However, strengthening the schemes will mean people with serious criminal convictions will no longer be eligible to hold an ASIC or MSIC.
Importantly, the changes presented by the bill will not only improve the government's ability to combat transnational and domestic organised crime, but they will also strengthen the schemes' existing national security purpose of protecting Australia's airports and ports against acts of terrorism and unlawful interference. The inclusion of new offences, such as foreign incursion and recruitment, will enhance the schemes' ability to exclude persons convicted of offences of the highest severity.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker Coulton—and can I congratulate you again on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. This is the first time I have seen you in the chair, and you suit it very well.
I move the motion relating to proposed amendments to the standing orders in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper. In order to save time, because I know that we have maiden speeches ahead and I do not want them to be curtailed at all, I will not speak to those, but I will point out to the House that they are agreed between us and the opposition and the crossbenchers. They are non-controversial but they will improve the House.
We will continue to talk to the opposition and the crossbenchers about other changes to the standing orders, which I think would be welcomed by all parties, particularly around the voting times for divisions and quorums et cetera, which we may also deal with in this sitting week. Then we will return on 12 September and propose other standing order amendments. If the opposition has amendments to those standing orders, that will be the opportunity to put them, and we will debate them.
I did tell the Manager of Opposition Business in the House in good faith, despite this morning's extraordinary behaviour, that if the government does not propose any other changes to standing orders I would still allow a debate on the opposition's proposals for standing order changes. I assume that the good faith that I am showing will be repaid by the opposition and by the crossbenchers. With that, I move:
That standing orders 1, 29, 34, 229 and 247 be amended as follows:
1 Maximum speaking times
The maximum time limits that apply to debates, speeches and statements are as follows.
29 Set meeting and adjournment times
(a) The House shall meet each year in accordance with the program of sittings for that year agreed to by the House, unless otherwise ordered and subject to standing order 30.
(b) When the House is sitting it shall meet and adjourn at the following times, subject to standing orders 30, 31 and 32:
34 Order of business
The order of business to be followed by the House is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2. House order of business
229 Appointment of committee members
(a) Members shall be appointed to or discharged from a committee by motion moved on notice.
(b) Special arrangements are required for a change in membership when the House is not sitting and is not expected to meet for at least two weeks. The relevant whip must nominate any appointment or discharge of a member of a committee in writing to the Speaker. The change in membership shall take effect from the time the Speaker receives the written nomination. At the next sitting, the Speaker shall report the change to the House and the House shall resolve the membership of the committee.
(c) If a committee is considering a bill referred under standing order 143, one or more members of the committee may be replaced by other Members by motion moved on notice. This does not affect the ability of a general purpose standing committee to have its membership supplemented under standing order 215(d).
(d) Any Member appointed as a Minister immediately ceases to be a member of all committees.
247 Report presented
(a) A member of the committee must present the report of the committee together with the minutes of proceedings, to the House or Federation Chamber.
(b) When a report is presented, it may be ordered to be made a Parliamentary Paper with or without the documents accompanying it.
(c) Special arrangements are required for times when the House is not sitting and a committee has completed a report of an inquiry. The committee may send the report to the Speaker, or to the Deputy Speaker if the Speaker is unavailable. When the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker receives the report:
(i) the report may be published; and
(ii) he or she may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report.
The committee must then present the report to the House or Federation Chamber as soon as possible.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the Selection Committee:
(a) meeting on or after today, if necessary by teleconference, to determine the order of consideration of matters and the times allotted for debate on each item and for each Member speaking, for private Members’ business and committee and delegation business, for Monday 12 September 2016;
(b) communicating its determinations to all Members of the House prior to that Monday; and
(c) reporting its determinations to the House following Prayers on Monday 12 September 2016;
(2) the Selection Committee’s determinations being shown in the Notice Paper for that Monday under ‘Business Accorded Priority’ for the House and Federation Chamber; and
(3) in the absence of a fully constituted Selection Committee, the arrangements for private Members’ business for Monday 12 September 2016 provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this resolution being determined by the Speaker, Chief Government Whip and Chief Opposition Whip.
Question agreed to.
( I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) matters arising from treaties and related National Interest Analyses and proposed treaty actions and related Explanatory Statements presented or deemed to be presented to the Parliament; and
(b) any question relating to a treaty or other international instrument, whether or not negotiated to completion, referred to the committee by:
(i) either House of the Parliament, or
(ii) a Minister; and
(iii) such other matters as may be referred to the committee by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and on such conditions as the Minister may prescribe;
(2) the committee consist of 16 members, 6 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(3) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(4) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(5) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(6) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(7) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;
(8) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(9) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint not more than three subcommittees each consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(10) in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (9), the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on Treaties appointed during previous Parliaments;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to suspend standing order 43 until the conclusion of the speech on the address-in-reply by the member for Fairfax, which will mean that the member for Boothby and the member for Fairfax will be able to give their maiden speeches despite the 1.30 pm 90-second statements cut-off. They will be able to complete them, and then we will go back to 90-second statements.
Leave granted.
We are all getting along so well, Mr Speaker. I move:
That standing order 43 be suspended until the conclusion of the speech on the address-in-reply by the member for Fairfax.
Question agreed to.
Before I call the honourable member for Boothby I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech and I ask that the House extend to her the usual courtesies.
I move:
That the Address be agreed to.
In a world weighed down with rules, regulations and red tape, it is an honour to move this motion and be part of these proceedings which rely on convention, tradition and precedent. This simple act reflects so much of what makes our nation great.
I move this motion today having sworn my allegiance to the Her Majesty the Queen—testament to the stability provided by our constitutional monarchy and the Judeo-Christian principles and traditions that have made us one of the most respected, respectful and peaceful nations on earth. This process has been guided by convention. I move this motion as a new backbencher from the government. I pay tribute to the steadiness that the Liberal, National and Labor parties have provided to our parliament and governments over the past century. We, on this side at least, will work to see that return. And I move this motion in a place that stands as its own uniquely Australian version of the Westminster parliamentary tradition. In these uncertain times we should stick with the institutions and customs that have served us so well and have made us the stable, free and fair society that we are.
I appreciate that my some of my colleagues may hold different views on several of these matters. But that is the great beauty of belonging to the broad church of the Liberal Party, where diversity of opinion is encouraged. In the spirit of our party's founder, Sir Robert Menzies, the conservative, classical liberal and moderate liberal strands of our party are equally celebrated and heard.
I am particularly honoured to be elected by the people of Boothby in what is a historic year for reasons of both public and personal anniversaries. My time in this place will see many more. It is two decades since my predecessor, Dr Andrew Southcott, was elected to this place, and I pay tribute to his service. Dr Southcott and his wife, Kate, provided great encouragement to me as a candidate.
2016 marks 35 years since another former Member for Boothby, Steele Hall, was elected to this place. Mr Hall, a former Premier of my state, and his wife, Joan Hall, a former minister, offered me tireless support. Indeed, I doubt there is another person in this place who had their campaign office vacuumed by a former Premier!
The electorate of Boothby stretches from the beautiful Mitcham Hills to Adelaide's best coastline. My connection with the area dates back a century, but it so very nearly did not. One hundred years ago this month, my great-grandfather, then just 18, was a member of the 48th Battalion that narrowly survived action at Pozieres. It strikes me as somewhat a miracle that Private Roy Gambrell survived, as his battalion faced the heaviest artillery barrage Australian troops had ever experienced, in a place Charles Bean observed is 'more deeply sown with Australian sacrifice than any other place on earth'.
In his address yesterday, His Excellency the Governor-General reminded us of more anniversaries of Australian sacrifice, as did the Prime Minister this morning. I will continue to commemorate the service of Australian service men and women to our nation with my friends at the Vietnam Veterans Federation at Warradale, the Blackwood and Colonel Light Gardens RSLs, and the Women's Memorial Playing Field Trust as we approach further centenaries of World War I, the 50th anniversaries of Coral-Balmoral in Vietnam and the 75th anniversary of the Bangka Strait massacre of Australian nurses during World War II.
We can also honour our service people in this place every day. It is a simple act to stand above this chamber on the grassed roof, look across to the War Memorial and reflect on the ultimate sacrifice so many made to protect the freedoms we enjoy. The greatest responsibility we have as representatives of the Australian people is to ensure our nation and our friends abroad remain safe and free. We owe this to generations past who gave their lives for our freedom. We owe this to each and every Australian living today. And we owe this to those Australians yet to be born.
To my mind at least, freedom is the simplest way to explain what it means to be a Liberal. During my campaign in Boothby I participated in a debate at Mercedes College where students asked us why they should vote for us. My campaign team had given me some very sound advice, outlining our agenda for jobs and growth, innovation and science, the defence industry and helping small business. I am sorry to say to my team, I went off script; excellent though my script was and proud though I am of our plan to restore economic certainty and security to our nation. Instead, I told those thoughtful young people that I would ask them to vote for me and for the Liberal Party for one simple reason: because we believe in freedom.
We want people to have the freedom to choose their path in life through education, enterprise and endeavour. We want them to succeed, not because of gender or skin colour, but because of merit. We want people to have the freedom to speak without fear and to defend their ideas and their ideals, not with violence or threats or court cases, but through robust and respectful debate. We want people to have the freedom to build a business or choose a job that gives them self-respect, and we want them to provide for their family, their community and those in need here and abroad.
Freedom is a key part of the story of my free-settled state of South Australia, which celebrates its 180th birthday this year. I am proud to say my mother's mother was a Kelly, not of the Ned Kelly colourful-criminal kind but of the staunch-Methodist honest-farmer Kelly kind who freely settled in South Australia in 1838 and produced one of our most important thinkers, reformers and effective public communicators, the 'Modest Member', Bert Kelly.
My mother's father, Alex Ling, and his identical twin brother, Roy, survived active service in the Second World War. They built their farm near Robe through sheer hard work and a bit of good luck. The Flints, also family farmers, arrived in South Australia a few years after the Kellys, in 1840; although, being Flints, we like to argue the specifics of this arrival.
What we do know is that we have been farming and active in the community around Kingston and Cape Jaffa since the late 1800s. So, when I promote and defend Australian family farmers and farming in this place at every opportunity, it is not just because my electorate of Boothby is home to one of the world's most important and prestigious agricultural research centres at Adelaide university's Waite Campus. It is because I come from generations of South Australian farmers who know what it is to run small businesses at the mercy of government, banks and markets, and that is before we even start on the weather—or for that matter the modern day scourge of environmental and animal activism, the product of a country so clever, fortunate and wealthy it does not know need or want, hunger or famine, pestilence or plague.
Those of us who grew up on farms know what it is to learn by doing. We know how to care for our environment, livestock and crops. We know the responsibility of feeding our nation. We also know from bitter experience the damage governments can do. If I was to nominate a single person who made me a Liberal it would not be my parents or John Howard or Robert Menzies or Margaret Thatcher. It would be Paul Keating.
In the early 1990s, when my parents were doing their best to run their business and provide for their four children, we had Paul Keating's 'recession we had to have'; record-high interest rates and—at that stage at least—record Labor debt. To top it all off, Labor abolished the floor price for wool without any transitional industry assistance. I learnt three things from this time: Labor can never be trusted to balance the books, they cannot be trusted to look after our farmers, and governments should not interfere in our markets. I fear that by allowing state-owned foreign investment in our nation, we are once again allowing this to occur.
I mentioned learning by doing. Formal learning and education is of course important to me too and forms a significant part of my story in Boothby. My father, uncle and aunt attended local schools. My great-grandmother Evelyn Gambrell, and my grandmother Gwenyth—whose calisthenics medal I am wearing today—taught at the Colonel Light Gardens Primary School for a combined 22 years. I am proud to say my brother John, his wife Catherine, my sister Belinda, her husband Josh and my youngest brother Simon's wife Rachel are all teachers too. I am also proud to say I studied at Flinders University in the heart of Boothby.
I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to the Tonsley-Flinders link rail project. I fought for this project in order to improve public transport for students, staff and patients, people travelling not just to the university but also to South Australia's second major hospital, Flinders Medical Centre. This project will create additional jobs so desperately needed in our state.
While I graduated from Flinders University with a law degree and am a fully qualified solicitor—though please do not hold this against me—it was my arts degree that has formed the basis of my very interesting career.
I was privileged to study politics and public policy under professors Dean Jaensch, Andrew Parkin and my long-suffering supervisor, Haydon Manning, who is here today. They gave me the skills and the inspiration to pursue a career in politics and policymaking. I wish more academics today were as balanced and kind as these professionals, who I cannot recall ever allowing their classes to be coloured with their own political views.
Little did I know it was the other strand of my arts degree—my studies in English and Australian literature—that would one day make me a columnist. I pay tribute to my Australian literature tutor, Kate Deller-Evans, who tragically passed away recently, and whose brother, John Deller, is a friend to many of us here. It was in Kate's class that I first encountered author Tim Winton, the man who inspired me to write my first column. Mr Winton's depiction of women in his books so angered me I put pen to paper!
The arts have been a theme throughout my columns because it is our artists, authors, filmmakers and songwriters who show us who we are. From the chop fat in the bottom of the pan in Peter Carey's Sydney based The Tax Inspector to our soldiers in the film Gallipoliand our shearers in Sunday Too Far Away; from Fred Williams's landscapes to Jeffrey Smart's cityscapes; and to bands like Cold Chisel and The Waifs who sing about our country from the city to the sea, we need those who tell our Australian stories and we should celebrate them more.
I must thank those who allowed me to tell my stories: editors and journalists Tom Switzer, Sam Weir, Anthony Johnson, David Pougher, Andrew Bolt and Tony Wright. But it was Sushi Das at The Age who gave me my first column and my confidence. I still wonder how she managed to get me published each fortnight in The Age!
The member for Barker, sitting next to me, encouraged me to take key roles in the Liberal Party, without which I doubt I would be here today as the first South Australian Liberal woman elected to the House of Representatives in 20 years. We need women and men working together to improve the representation of Liberal women in this place—or any other, for that matter. The reasons this is necessary for my party are laid out in the paper Gender and politics I co-authored last year with the Executive Director of the Menzies Research Centre, Nick Cater. I credit Nick with convincing me that it was time to act if we want to improve our party's impressive record of electoral and governance success since Federation. It is now my task to convince our party.
Those who call for mandatory quotas fatally misunderstand the culture of our people. Change needs to be organic, and it needs to be encouraged from the grassroots up. Change also needs to occur in how we conduct ourselves, in this place and outside, on the issue of nationwide reform. Where significant attempts have been made in recent times on both sides, they have too often failed—in part, to quote from a Guns'n'Roses song, because of 'failure to communicate'. But the problem is not one of communication alone. We need academics, the media and our industry associations, like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, where I once worked, to debate, discuss and support the case for change.
It is a great honour to be elected as the member for Boothby and as a member in the Prime Minister's government. I am conscious, however, that it carries a heavy responsibility. Advancing our national prosperity and justice is the task to which we apply ourselves in this parliament. While we may disagree with those opposite on how to achieve that, some things are certain. We will not advance prosperity by deferring hard economic decisions. We will not help business to prosper by dodging the challenge of increasing productivity. We will not provide justice to future generations by leaving a burden of high debt. We advance justice by encouraging less dependence on the state. To borrow from Sir Robert Menzies, a government should be remembered not so much by:
… a debate won or an electoral victory gained as of a nation advanced in prosperity and justice.
I will move from the great Sir Robert Menzies to quote a great band from Boothby, the Hilltop Hoods: 'This life'—and the past year—'turned out nothing like I had planned.' It is thanks to the incredible support from a range of people that I am here. Mr Speaker, you are one of those. I want to congratulate you on your re-election to the role that you conduct with humility and grace. We share similar trajectories to this place, and I am grateful for your advice, friendship and support. There is no greater relief to a new candidate than having colleagues offer support, as you did, Mr Speaker, and as did the members for Barker, Kooyong, Warringah, Flinders, Robertson, Canning and Tangney; our chief government whip, the member for Forrest; former members Dr Brendan Nelson and Ross Cameron; and Senators Bernardi, Fawcett, Seselja and Paterson.
I thank my state colleagues Stephan Knoll, Sam Duluk, David Speirs and Corey Wingard, and former members Stan Evans and his wife, Barb, and the Hon. Legh Davis. I cannot thank my campaign manager, Sam Duluk, enough for his efforts and for making me and my many volunteers work harder every single day. My state Liberal Party president and friend, Mr Steve Murray, the ultimate volunteer, was instrumental to the campaign and to my maintaining my sense of humour. I thank our state director, Sascha Meldrum, Brendan Clark and my now office manager, Jane Johnston.
I thank all my incredible volunteers, but especially those who were there with me from the start: Helen and Saffron Ronson, Alexander Hyde, Jack Newton, Erin Murray, Leighton McDonald-Stuart, Ben Newell and Ben Hall. Thank you to Michael van Dissel, Malcolm Post and the finance team. Special thanks to Dr Peter Hendy, Greg and Marguerite Evans—who were so good to me in my time at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry—Matthew, Charmaine, Sue and the late Chris Binns, Tony and Vicky Franzon, Peter and Jenny Hurley and my friend Nick Cater. Finally, I thank the Clerk of the House, Mr David Elder, and Ms Robyn McClelland for their help in the lead-up to today.
I thank my family and friends here today, particularly my parents, Evan and Glenys, who have been great role models to me in terms of hard work in their business, community and eating well. As dad says, 'If you're going to do a job, do it properly.' My best friend, Jane, and her parents, Keith and Vicky McBride, are cut from the same cloth, as is my uncle, Tim Flint, whose Westminster School bible I have with me here today. I cannot thank them enough for their support over the years.
Most of all, I am indebted to the people of Boothby. I am blessed to have been so warmly welcomed by groups across the electorate that I have not yet mentioned, including the Seacliff, Somerton and Brighton surf lifesaving clubs, the Sturt CFS brigade, the many Rotary clubs—including my own at Blackwood—the Onkaparinga Northern Community Forum, the Bedford Park Residents Association and the Flagstaff Community Centre. St Jude's Anglican Church, the Uniting Church at Brighton and Trinity Inner South, as well as the Blackwood and Trinity Baptist churches, have been generous with their friendship and time. Small business owners are the economic backbone of our community in Boothby, and I thank them for everything they do.
I serve at the pleasure of the people of Boothby and I will try to do my best for them every day. As the fourth generation of my family to have lived, worked, studied and volunteered in the electorate since my great-grandparents settled in Claire Street, Lower Mitcham, in a modest war service home in 1920, the people of Boothby can trust that I have their very best interests at heart, because they are my own. Our task in this place is to protect what Menzies described as a great and special freedom: the freedom to do our best and to make that best better.
I second the motion.
Before I call the member for Fairfax, I remind the House that it is the honourable member's first speech, and I ask the House to extend the usual courtesies.
I am honoured to rise in the chamber today and make my maiden speech in this, the 45th Parliament of Australia. Maybe I could say from the outset, Mr Speaker, how encouraged I am that you have asked people to extend to me the usual courtesies. I suppose that means they cannot heckle me. So maybe I should say that, unashamedly, as the new member for Fairfax, I represent by far the most important electorate in all of Australia. That is the 'Hear, hear!' prompt there.
Named after Ruth Fairfax, the wonderful founder of that organisation, the Country Women's Association, my electorate lies in Gubbi Gubbi country right in the heart of Queensland's Sunshine Coast. We are an eclectic mix of towns and villages combined with unrivalled natural beauty and a near-perfect climate. For me, it is a rare place that still possesses all that old-style romantic charm of a small community but with a happy, vibrant, modern population. It is one of those unique places in Australia where the values of the past and the opportunities of the future genuinely coexist.
Idyllic though it is, some people in Fairfax are still doing it tough. Many seniors are struggling with cost-of-living issues, many young people are leaving the region because of limited career prospects, and too many small businesses and families are carrying too much debt and struggling to make ends meet. Part of the solution for these people and for all residents of the Sunshine Coast is for us to build a better future, one anchored to a vision of becoming the healthiest place on earth, a region that protects and leverages its natural beauty while diversifying its economy into clean, green, high-value industries enabled by modern infrastructure while never losing its family friendly and community oriented culture.
It has not been an easy road to get here. In fact, being elected to the seat of Fairfax has been the longest and toughest job interview of my life. And, of course, I did not do it on my own. My colleagues, from the Prime Minister down, provided enormous support, encouragement and counsel along the way. I also had a very strong team on the ground—an army of volunteers, in fact; too many to mention by name. They deserve the credit for my being here today. I am delighted that some of them have been able to make the trip down and are in the gallery today. Together we reclaimed the seat of Fairfax for the people of Fairfax—and, indeed, for the people of the Sunshine Coast. In fact, this last election gave birth to 'team Sunshine Coast' as three new MPs, Andrew Wallace, Llew O'Brien and I, joined Senator James McGrath to work collectively as a team to put our region first. As part of that team, my pledge to the people of our region is to be the Sunshine Coast's man in Canberra and not Canberra's man on the Sunshine Coast.
I said before that I would not mention any volunteer by name, but I will make one exception. It is for one who is more a conscript than a volunteer, and that is my wife, Sophia, whom I love and adore more than anything in the world. How anyone can pursue public life without the support of a loving family I just do not know. But what I do know is that I have the very best of them in mine. It helps too that Sophia is far better looking and more charming and twice as smart as I will ever be.
Government members: Hear, hear!
I got a hear, hear for that one, Mr Speaker.
I am the ninth and youngest child of Tom and Bernice O'Brien. My mother, Bernice, is here today. To speak plainly, I love my mum. I thank my mum for dedicating her life to being such a wonderful wife to dad and the most extraordinary mother to us, her nine children.
We lost dad to Parkinson's disease nearly five years ago. He was a man of great humility, gentleness and wisdom, yet hard as nails when pushed or his values were challenged. His advice to us boys before we ran on the rugby field was: 'Run straight and tackle hard, my son.' Run straight and tackle hard—sage advice for far more than just the sporting arena.
I am one who believes that we are all largely part of our own backgrounds and personal experiences. To that end, nothing has influenced me more than growing up the youngest of my family—the youngest of nine children. By the way, don't believe those who say the youngest child is spoilt. If you grow up one of nine kids, seven of whom are boys, and you are down the bottom, I swear it is not all kisses and cuddles, but you learn a lot.
As a schoolboy it did not matter if I was a leader among my mates, back at home along that long kitchen table—mum at one end, dad at the other and us nine in between—good luck if you thought you were going to call the shots. When I was little I used to be put on the table, or get there myself, because that was the only way I could be heard. I have checked out these tables here, and I take it I am not allowed to do such.
No matter how loved I was or how secure I felt, no matter what I was able to achieve in the outside world or what positions I held, back home I was still just one of nine. This ingrained in me from my very beginning an appreciation for what it is like to be part of something far bigger, far greater and far more important than I. It is with that same sentiment that I stand here today as someone who sees politics as a vocation to serve and not as a career to progress. I recognise that by virtue of being elected to this chamber I now am part of something far bigger, far greater and far more important than I.
Another aspect of my early years was growing up in our family business, started by my forebears as a flour milling company on the Darling Downs in 1899. They named the company 'Defiance' to signify a determination to take on the mainly international companies then dominating the industry.
My first job was as a trainee baker with Defiance. I started at an age where I still needed to stand on a chair so I could reach the workbench.
Defiance opened my eyes to the world when, straight out of school, I did my first stint living and working in Asia, helping the family business break in to new markets. I quickly came to realise how good we have it here in Australia—how safe, how prosperous and how free our country is—and how important good and stable governance is for maintaining this. That remains my view today.
This week I enter parliament after 20 years in business, with experience from industries as diverse as agriculture through to high technology, from small start-ups through to multinationals. Most of that time has been spent living and working predominately in Asia, giving me a perspective of our country that I do not think I would have otherwise gained. Australia is a medium-sized free market liberal democracy living in an increasingly integrated, yet highly volatile, global political economy—one that is experiencing rapid change: change that on one hand presents enormous opportunities but on the other hand presents us with great risks and challenges. Whether we like it or not, as a nation we do not control all the levers that will determine our future. We don't, and that is just the nature of the world and our place in it.
We have a choice. Either we be complacent as a nation and leave things to fate, react as challenges arise as best we can and otherwise hope to God our future is as safe and prosperous as our past or, in my preference, we take control of our own destiny.
My wife, Sophia, and I often reflect on what the world will look like when our little girl, Alexandra, who is now four, is our age. My hope is that the future Australia that she and her little mates at kindy will enjoy will be one driven not my major events, not by political parties nor ideology but by values. The foundation upon which I hope our future is built is a common set of values—values that bind all Australians regardless of race, religion or creed.
I believe there is no greater value than that of freedom, for nothing else guarantees happiness and fulfilment like freedom, freedom realised through independence, self-reliance and dignity of the individual—ideals that in turn promote protection of speech and property rights and encourage human endeavour and free enterprise. Of course, freedom expressed in these terms can be interpreted as individual rights, and I believe they are. I also believe that in our society the pendulum has swung too far in favour of individual rights without a commensurate degree of individual responsibilities.
Built on these foundations lies a vision for a future Australia. I see a future Australia that is well governed, not because we inserted government into every aspect of our lives or because we ensured conformity by dumbing down public debate, but because we revisited the simple notion of the role of government and let go of activities beyond the scope of what government should be looking after and because we acknowledge that our founders' intent for the federal compact was a sound one, with different tiers of government responsible for different things in accordance with our Constitution. Thus, we devolved more responsibilities to the states, including the areas of health and education.
I see a future Australia that is prosperous, not because we struck it lucky with a never-ending resource boom but because we had the common sense to leverage those industries in which we have a competitive advantage and we created and commercialised new intellectual property, and because we had the courage to repair our fiscal position, reform the tax system and welfare system, and bring flexibility to the labour market, thereby creating jobs, opening opportunities for Australian businesses, and freeing younger generations from a financial burden not of their making, while also taking care for our seniors and guaranteeing a generous safety net for struggling, hardworking individuals, families, pensioners and others in need.
I see a future Australia that is highly competitive because we reformed competition policy, improved productivity and restored profitability back to the land by empowering regional and rural Australia—not because we chose winners, protected incumbents or cleared the way for big companies to grow even bigger but because we found ways to entice super funds and capital inflows to invest in new, productive assets, including world-class infrastructure, and because we dismantled monopolies in both industry and the labour market, removed unnecessary regulation and put the interests of small businesses first.
I see a future Australia that is safe and secure, not because we denied the threat of Islamic terrorism and thereby weakened our resolve or we feared it so much we retreated into isolationism but because we asserted our national interests, strengthened our traditional alliances and deepened relations with emerging powers within our region; because we invested wisely in national defence, protected our strategic assets and looked after our service men and women; and because we welcomed with open arms immigrants who respected our values, our way of life, our system of government and our rule of law.
I see a future Australia that is compassionate, not because we were shamed into submission by media-savvy activists or those who confronted us on our doorstep but because we generously allocated resources that were distributed on the principle of helping those most in need—people suffering from disease and starvation in poverty-stricken nations, and people fleeing persecution in war-torn countries or in countries of first asylum.
I see a future Australia with a strong civil society, not because we solved social issues by even bigger welfare programs but because we made local communities more resilient, helped not-for-profits become more commercially sustainable, and found new ways to build and reward volunteerism and philanthropy; because we increased participation in our democracy and restored trust in our institutions and honour and dignity to public office; and because we fostered a high standard of public debate—debate which was honest and fearless, not censored by politically correct media or cheapened by cowardly social media trolls or keyboard warriors.
I believe this future Australia can eventuate, but it will not just happen. It has to be got. It has to be fought for. And its beneficiaries will be not only my little Alexandra but young people right across the seat of Fairfax, from Mountain Creek to Mudjimba, Nambour to Ninderry, Kenilworth to Kuluin, and everywhere in between, and not just them but Australians of all younger generations and those yet to be born.
But this will not be easy, and it will require us to break some myths. We need to break a myth that there is a political choice to be made between, on one hand, growing the economy and, on the other, delivering vital services: health, education and the like. There is no such choice, because without one you cannot have the other. Having a strong economy is the means by which we can deliver vital public services on an ongoing basis to every Australian. And, as the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others have been rightly pointing out, we need to break the myth that we can keep living beyond our means. We are a formidable economy, especially compared to other nations. There is no doubt about that. But just because others are in worse shape than we are does not mean we ourselves do not have a problem. If we are to avoid the severe pain that an economic crisis would inflict, we need to accept that as a country we have been living beyond our means, and we need to adjust our behaviour accordingly.
To my mind, breaking these myths requires nothing short of a cultural shift, and in my experience it does not matter how smart you are. It does not matter how clever your strategy, how persuasive your words. There is only one thing that ever changes culture, and that is leadership. Leadership is the secret ingredient—leadership displayed in this chamber, in this modern-day colosseum where the battles of ideas can be fought, and leadership displayed beyond these hallowed halls: on the street corners and in the shopping malls, in the grandstands and in the town halls, wherever we have an opportunity to speak with those we are here to serve.
I am honoured to have been elected to a government that will provide that leadership, and I will play my part to ensure that as a nation we do not walk complacently into the future but we control our destiny and, with a clear line of sight to the future, we run hard and we tackle harder. Thank you.
Debate interrupted.
What a spectacle we witnessed earlier today. The member for Dawson executed a backflip that would have been good enough to win gold at the Rio Olympics in recanting his support for a royal commission into the banks. Indeed, just four months ago on 9 April this year, the member for Dawson tweeted:
@SenatorWacka is right: we need a royal commission into the banks. Their treatment of farmers is appalling.
On Facebook he went on to tell his supporters:
I have been a supporter of such a royal commission in the past and will continue to be stringent about the need for it in the next parliament.
He went on to ask his Facebook followers, 'Will Bill Shorten have the courage to propose a royal commission?'
Well, today Bill Shorten had the courage to move that in this parliament, and what did the member for Dawson do? Jelly-backed George Christensen became the first person in Australia to be rolled by Malcolm Turnbull on an issue of policy. Defending the banks was the first issue to spur the PM to take on the extremists in his party, not the member for Dawson's attendance at a Reclaim Australia rally, not his vilification of refugees but defending the banks. The embarrassment of this has caused the member for Dawson to block me on Twitter. I am sorry George; you cannot block me in parliament. The standing orders do not provide for it. I will not let you run away from this shameless backflip. I will remind you and I will remind your constituents that what you fought for at the last election, the big game you talked about on social media and what you told your constituents—the first vote you took in parliament, you wimped it.
Today is International Overdose Awareness Day. This is a day to remember the many thousands of Australians who have lost their lives to drug overdoses, and the families who remain behind. According to the United Nations our region has a higher than average drug mortality rate. At least three Australians die every day from overdose. According to the Penington Institute, 83 per cent of these deaths involve prescription medications. Over the past decade the use of prescribed opioid painkillers has increased by more than 400 per cent, yet community education programs have not kept pace. Awareness campaigns around the misuse of prescription medicines should receive a similar prioritisation to those on alcohol and illicit drug use and skin cancer prevention.
There is also a strong argument made by those on the front line of this issue for the introduction of a nationwide, real-time monitoring system. Tasmania's introduction in 2008 of DORA, the Drugs and Poisons Information System Online Remote Access system, has been a great success in tackling that state's problem with misuse of OxyContin. As the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Medicine group, I support the call from groups like ScriptWise for a nation-wide, real-time monitoring system, and I will be using this International Overdose Awareness Day to write to the Minister for Health and Aged Care to ask her to look at this important issue.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker Broadbent; it is lovely to have you in the seat. Today I would like to take a few minutes to acknowledge the work of our staff and the contribution they make to helping this place work so efficiently. In particular I would like to name and think three of my staff: Simon Crase, who was my media and community engagement adviser; Rod Klein, electoral officer; and Karen Keegan, who is here with us today, my chief of staff and policy adviser. These three staff are moving on to do other great work on behalf of the people of Australia. But I would like to take this opportunity to thank them and in particular you, Karen, for your dedication, your loyalty, your wisdom, your tact and diplomacy, your courage, your good humour and your incredible ability to negotiate.
I would like to say on behalf of the whole parliament: all our staff work well and truly beyond what we pay for. If any of us are any good, it is because we stand on the shoulders of our staff. We will miss you as you move to the next stage of your life, but we know that you and all our staff will continue to do great work for us. We will miss you, but we know you will move on to bigger and better things. I would like to say thank you for what you have done for me, for the people of Indi and for the people of Australia. In bringing that matter to a close, I would also like to acknowledge the staff of all of us here. They work so hard and they do so much. But thank you, particularly to Karen, to Simon and to Rod for all the work you have done for me.
Joondalup Health Campus recently celebrated its twentieth anniversary. The major hospital is located in my electorate but essentially services patients from three neighbouring federal electorates, namely Moore, Pearce and Cowan. The Joondalup Health Campus is operated under a public-private model by Ramsay Health Care, and I wish to acknowledge the dedicated team of staff, led by CEO Kempton Cowan, for its contribution in delivering a very high standard of health care for our community.
On 3 June, I was invited to attend the opening of the new Telethon Children's Ward, the latest addition to the hospital, which was delivered on time and under budget at a cost of $12.1 million. Located in one of the fastest growing areas in Australia, with a 60 per cent projected increase in population over the next 20 years, there exists significant need for increased capacity through an expansion of the facility to ensure that our community has adequate health care. A master plan has been prepared, providing a blueprint for a $375 million future expansion leading to 2026. In the shorter term, however, capital funding of approximately $113 million is required to construct the first stage of the upgrade, comprising eight new operating theatres, 90 new public hospital beds and expansion of the emergency department. I make the case for the federal government to provide capital funding for the expansion of Joondalup Health Campus.
For the eight long, excruciating weeks of the federal election campaign the daily mantra of the coalition representatives was 'Jobs and growth', and 'Protect our borders'. We know when it was exposed to the faintest of scrutiny that it was nothing more than a hollow slogan devoid of any content—particularly if you are a merchant seafarer. You are confident that the jobs and growth slogan did not apply to you because all you have seen for the last two years is a government colluding with the workers and colluding with the bosses to remove you off your boat, to take down the Australian flag and replace it with a flag of a foreign country so that you could have your job replaced with foreign crew.
Even more extraordinary than this was the government's willingness to ignore and sweep aside immigration and visa control to ensure that foreign crews could be used to replace Australian workers in the offshore oil and gas industry. Thankfully, we have checks and balances in this country, because at lunchtime today the High Court of Australia handed down a decision that said that the minister's, Senator Cash's, special purpose visas, which were used to flout the law, were, quite simply, illegal. She has been caught out; she has been caught red-handed. The High Court has shut it down and sent a clear message to the minister that she is not above the law. It is time for those opposite to do exactly the same thing and support Australian workers. (Time expired)
) ( ): I was just looking for my medication, Mr Deputy Speaker! A very passionate and robust contribution by the member for Whitlam. I rise to acknowledge the Isolated Children's Parents' Association of Australia and the enormous contribution they make to regional and rural Australia in helping remote families get their kids off to boarding school as well as helping them with the enormous challenges that face that sector. Recently I had the wonderful opportunity to spend some time in Western Australia and attend the association's national conference, at which they had no less than 180 delegates from all around Australia representing 37 different unique geographical branches. They all travelled to Western Australia, advocating for a better deal for kids travelling from remote areas off to boarding school.
Today in the House we have four distinguished members of the executive. Wendy Hick is their federal president. She is in the House today, along with the immediate past president, Judy Sinclair-Newton ; their federal public relations officer, Nikki McQueen ; and a federal councillor from Queensland, Lynise Conagh a n . These people work tirelessly, and they offer their contributions in a voluntary capacity.
More recently, during the campaign, the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, at the National Press Club on 22 June announced four measures. I will not run through what those measures are, but the last one is a review—and these people will be working tirelessly to make sure that the families in regional and remote Australia get a better deal. (Time expired)
Recently we had a very conspicuous example of the Prime Minister's weakness. I a m not talking about marri a ge equality, al though his failure to deliver it is a great e mbarrassment to him. I am speaking of the Prime Minister's failure to support former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd f or the position of UN Secretary- General. We are the country that produced Doc Evatt; we are the country that has long been internationalist. Our leaders see the value of a position on the UN Security Council—though it took some longer than others to form that view.
Who would have thought that we would squib an opportunity to seek the post of UN Secretary- General for an Australian ? It i s reported that the cabinet voted 11 to 10 in favour of Kevin Rudd's bid to compete for the post. But our faint - hearted Prime Minister, afraid of retribution from people on the fringe of his party room, caved. He blocked this opportunity to have an Australian lead the UN.
The Prime Minister must, by now, be learning that his weakness emboldens those who seek to constrain him. That is a problem for him , of course, but, more importantly , it is a problem for the nation. What a disgrace that a sitting Prime Minister did not lead the Australian government to support a former Prime Minister to take a leadership role in the UN. This should have been above partisanship and above personalities. The Prime Minister's failure in this regard reflects incredibly poorly upon him and it reflects poorly upon the Australian nation . Who did the Prime Minister barrack for in the Olympics? Was he barracking for New Zealand in the Olympics? Why wouldn't he have backed an Australian for the UN Secretary-General post? It is a disgrace. (Time expired)
I inform the House that, as part of the Northern Mallee Leaders Program and the Loddon Murray community leadership program, more than 50 young Australians are visiting this parliament today. These are impressive young people—some are not so young—and they are here to sharpen their axes and to make sure that they will become great community leaders. A man who is going to chop down a forest first sharpens his axe. They are here to learn from leaders on both sides of this House about how to contribute to their communities. Developing leaders from vibrant and sustainable communities across the region is their passion, and it is my strong belief that our greatest natural resource, as Australians, is our people.
Among these people—I have had a look at some of their bios—some are involved in Sunraysia Fruit and Vegetable Swap. Some are involved in sports mentoring and in community fundraising through sport. There are White Ribbon advocates who want to minimise family violence in our community. Some have travelled internationally to assist poverty-stricken communities. I will be hosting them for a meal tonight, as will the member for Bendigo. It is so encouraging to see that we have young people who care about their communities, who come to the Australian parliament. You are welcome. Enjoy this; this is your house. May you all go on to do great things to make the places where you live even better places to live.
Congratulations on your re-election, Mr Speaker.
I thank the member for Batman.
It is an honour to be returned to this House as the member for Batman and to speak once again in support of marriage equality—a key issue for my electorate and, indeed, a key issue for the nation. This Prime Minister continues to insist that a plebiscite is the only option to achieve marriage equality, but of course we know that is not true. It is, rather, the only option he has in a party room where he is constrained by his extreme right wing. Instead, members, we have the option to do our jobs, as freshly elected representatives in the immediate aftermath of an election, and vote on a marriage equality bill immediately. There is no need for this to be an all or nothing issue.
I am proud to support Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek as they seek to introduce a private member's bill that will make marriage equality a reality—and it will make it a reality without a costly plebiscite, without the expenditure of more than $160 million and without putting our constituents through a divisive and unnecessary national debate. I urge the Prime Minister to demonstrate something he has failed to do hitherto: to show some courage, to take a stand and to allow a free vote in this parliament on marriage equality immediately; to let this parliament do the task that it is entrusted with; and for each and every one of us to discharge our responsibilities fresh after an election.
Recently I attended the Panania RSL Soccer Club's mini Roos gala day at Kelso reserve in Panania. I was very pleased to attend the event and to present trophies to the players who had worked hard throughout the year. The club was established in 1963 and is one of the largest football clubs in the Bankstown District Amateur Football Association. I would like to thank Shane Merry, the general manager of the Bankstown district association, and Dave McFadden, the secretary of Panania RSL soccer, for their hospitality on the day. I would also like to thank Panania Diggers, and particularly the president, Garry Murray OAM, for their ongoing support of this very important institution, of our club, Panania RSL Soccer Club: a great club doing great work in our community.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On 10 April this year the Prime Minister said the existing laws and regulators were sufficient to deal with the ongoing rip-offs and scandals in the banking sector. Since then, his government has been forced to announce or flag new measures on no less than four occasions, including today. When will the Prime Minister stop protecting the banks, show some real leadership and call a royal commission?
The real question is: when will the Leader of the Opposition stop playing politics? When will he take an interest in the lives and the livings and the businesses of Australians instead of posing as some sort of latter-day Jack Lang, some sort of populist champion of the battler and small business? The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition has no interest whatsoever in any of the people that have been hard done by the banks—none at all. He has not offered to recover one dollar. He has not offered to change one law. What he has offered to do is spend years and years and years on a lawyers' funding fest. The only people that will be enriched out of a banking royal commission will be the legal profession. Honourable members opposite know that very, very well. Indeed, it was only a few years ago that the member for Lilley, interviewed by Laurie Oakes, said:
… the last thing the system needs is another inquiry. Crass populism doesn't work—
Well, it is working right here, member for Lilley—
What works here is methodical application, the detail, getting it right, then getting it in place so the reform is enduring for the long term.
That is what we are doing. We are determined to deliver for Australians who want to see a better financial system and better regulation. We are taking action. We have strong regulation. We know that. We recall that the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Financial Services for three years. He has had more experience with financial services than have most members of this House. He was also a director of AustralianSuper, an industry fund which has in excess of $5 billion invested in Australia's big banks. I have not noticed AustralianSuper using its shareholding pressure to get the bank to change their practices! But the honourable member opposite could speak to Dave Oliver and all the other ACTU representatives on the board of AustralianSuper.
When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Financial Services he said:
Australia has some of the best banks in the world. It is partly because of our excellent regulatory system and prudent management.
So for all that time, when he had the levers of power in his hands, what did he do? Nothing. Last year what did they do when a royal commission was proposed? Nothing. When I have asked him for some suggestions and measures that would improve the situation, does he have any ideas? Nothing—just a royal commission. They should build a statue of him outside the barristers' chambers! (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House of the importance of economic leadership in building Australia's prosperity—in particular, the role of government in showing the discipline to live within your means?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The coalition took to the election a clear economic plan which set out a road map to boost investment and generate jobs and growth. It provides opportunities for the enterprising men and women of Australia to take advantage of the enormous opportunities that are available to us today. It enables our children and our grandchildren to inherit a more prosperous Australia that is built on fairness and opportunity for all. But we cannot secure that economic prosperity unless we face up to the real challenges that confront us, especially the challenge of bringing our budget back into balance. We cannot keep living beyond our means.
The Australian people have endorsed our economic plan and returned us to the treasury bench. We must now work to address the moral challenge of budget repair. And this is a moral issue. This is an issue of intergenerational equity. For how long are we going to live on the credit cards of our children and grandchildren? That is what we are doing at the moment. We have to address that. And we have set out a road map to do that in our economic plan. These difficult decisions have been deferred and delayed over the years. We have to find a way to come together, to find common ground, or we risk saddling future generations with mounting debt.
Like the family budget, the government budget can only stretch so far. Households know that you cannot keep going to the bank to pay the bills; you have to look at whether every dollar you are spending is being spent wisely. Every member and every senator has a responsibility to support the task of budget repair. Failing to do so betrays our children and grandchildren. It will undermine and put at risk our AAA credit rating. Maintaining that rating is important; it underpins the cost of borrowing right across the economy.
Now this morning we took another important step on the road to budget repair, when the Treasurer introduced into the House the omnibus savings bill. It not only includes savings of more than $6 billion, it represents savings that the opposition supported during the election, and we call on the opposition to stay true to their word by supporting this bill and the measures within it, which are all of critical importance. Only a strong economy—a strong budget position—can ensure Medicare, schools, pensions, and all the other services that Australians expect from their government. Only a strong budget position secures them, provides them, guarantees them into the future.
Just before I call the Leader of the Opposition, the level of interjections is already fairly high. I caution the member for Jagajaga; I did not want to interrupt Prime Minister. The member for Jagajaga is continually interjecting, as are some others. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Three days after the election, the Prime Minister said that he had learned his lesson on cutting Medicare. Given the Prime Minister says he has learned his lesson, which of his Medicare cuts has he reversed in the two months since the election?
The Leader of the Opposition, in the course of this election, engaged in one of the most dishonest campaigns ever undertaken in an Australian election.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
The Leader of the Opposition authorised a campaign targeted at Australians who are over 65, Australians that were vulnerable, Australians that were anxious about their healthcare, and he told the lie that the government was going to privatise Medicare; that there would be no Medicare. The Labor Party went to the extent of sending out a text message which purported to be from Medicare.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
That distinguished QC opposite, the member for Isaacs, he scoffs. Did the member for Isaacs give advice? Was it the member for Isaacs that told the Labor Party that there was a loophole in the law? Was his the cunning legal mind that said, 'yes; you go to jail for five years if you impersonate a Commonwealth official, but if you impersonate Medicare, you probably won't get charged'? Was that the brilliant legal insight? It is always good to help people get around the criminal law, member for Isaacs. That is what—did you do that, would you do that, wending your way through the Crimes Act?
Opposition members interjecting—
Medicare is guaranteed. Medicare has always been guaranteed. Bulk-billing is at an all-time high, spending in Medicare is at an all-time high. The lies the Labor Party spread in that election did, regrettably, convince a number of Australians. But they have not convinced anyone in this House. They knew it was a lie and so do we.
Members will cease interjecting. The member for Gorton will not interject. The member for Ballarat was interjecting right through that answer: the member for Ballarat is warned. I call the member for Capricornia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minster outline to the House the government's agenda to deliver on the commitments it took to the Australian people at the 2 July election?
I thank the honourable member for her question. The Australian people in the election endorsed the coalition's plan for a more prosperous and fair Australia. We took our plan to the people. We have a mandate for those policies. We will deliver on our commitments and we will repay the trust the Australian people placed in us. My government will provide the economic leadership Australia needs to embrace the opportunities of the 21st century and navigate the economic headwinds coming towards us from the global economy. Today marks an important step in that delivery.
This morning, I introduced into the House vital pieces of workplace relations reform. Reinstating the Australian Building and Construction Commission restores the rule of law to the construction industry, and the registered organisations bill restores transparency and accountability to trade unions and employer organisations. These measures address the kind of thuggery and illegal activity that was exposed by the Heydon royal commission. They boost productivity across the building and construction sector. They are vital economic reforms.
The construction industry is critical to our economy. An efficient construction industry and the infrastructure it provides is fundamental to prosperity. The added cost of industrial disputes on construction sites is a handbrake on our economy, significantly raising the cost to the community of building necessary infrastructure and limiting growth in the construction sector. It also has a direct impact on housing affordability. When the cost of constructing apartment buildings is driven up by industrial disruption, that has direct consequences for property prices. And let us not forget, the construction industry employs more than a million Australians—Australians that work hard to better their lives and look after their families. Those Australians should enjoy a workplace free of the bullying and harassment, the thuggery and stand-over tactics employed by building unions and in particular by the CFMEU.
True to form, the unions, supported by Labor, have resorted to dishonest smears to oppose this reform. There is no truth in any of the claims that the ABCC, when it was in existence, impacted the safety of building sites in any negative way. The facts on the matter are very clear: access to building sites by safety regulators and union officials is governed by state safety legislation and the Fair Work Act. The ABCC legislation we introduced again today does not change any of that. Safety is protected, workers are protected; the building and construction sector needs to be one where the rule of law prevails, and our law will change that and ensure that it is. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his last answer, where the Prime Minister neglected to mention superannuation. During the election campaign the Prime Minister said that the government superannuation policy was absolutely ironclad. But the AFR reports this morning that the Prime Minister's proposed changes to superannuation are not expected for at least a month because of 'changes demanded by the backbench.' Will the government implement its election policies on superannuation unchanged?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
An honourable member interjecting—
I recognise the voice but there's been some seat changes. Cease interjecting wherever you are.
Mr Speaker, there has been a seat change but not a sea change! I thank the honourable member for his question about superannuation. We did take a clear policy on superannuation to the election and that is our policy. As the Treasurer has said on several occasions, as has the minister for revenue, we are consulting with stakeholders about the implementation in the normal way.
An honourable member interjecting—
The honourable member opposite is reminding us of Senator Cormann's wibble-wobble song. I think you would be better off not doing that, frankly. I thought it seemed to be a very good fit.
We are consulting on implementation. We took a detailed plan to the election. Changes to superannuation, as honourable members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, should know—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga is warned.
are very complex. It is a very complex area and drafting is very complex. I would just note, in concluding, that the Leader of the Opposition in the course of the election so respected the judgement of the Australian people, so respected their right to know what he was offering that he appropriated all of our superannuation savings but would not tell us what his policy was. But there's more! In the Press Club only last week, he did set out what some of his changes were. With a characteristic dedication to the interests of industry funds and disregard for everybody else, the deletions he would propose from our policy were designed to disadvantage older Australians who are over 65 and under 75, women, carers, people on independent contracts and the self-employed—a classic Labor stunt, a classic Labor exercise supporting only one section of the community, reminding us yet again that the Labor Party does not speak for all Australians. It does not speak for older Australians. It does not speak for independent contractors. It does not speak for women who have been out of the workforce with families who want to come back to work and want to catch up on their contributions. No, they get nothing under Labor's scheme. We set out a good policy. The Treasurer and the minister are consulting on it. I look forward to the legislation being presented when that complex task is complete.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Ms Collins interjecting—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The members for Rankin, Franklin and Shortland will cease interjecting.
To the Deputy Prime Minister: the government is aware that in seven of North Queensland's 100 million hectares there is now a prickly acacia infestation. The north's cattle herd dwindles at 4.5 million, whilst turnoff is only one in six—half of the nation's one in three. Queensland is considering the river ways and grasslands improvement plan. Will the minister consider providing $2.5 million for engineering and construction planning for Hughenden, the first microirrigation scheme in a plan that ultimately increases the north's beef production by $5 billion a year?
I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I know that he always likes direct answers, so I will give him one. We are happy to consider that. I think it is only fit and proper that we start working on further irrigation infrastructure throughout this nation. That is why we have put $2 billion towards a concessional loan scheme to assist in construction as well as $500 million towards grants. That $500 million towards grants during the election campaign was no better enunciated than at Rookwood Weir when, with the Prime Minister, we put $130 million on the table to start the advancement of that community. If we get that project through—and we are working with the state government now in a bipartisan way to try and make sure that we do—that will be an extra over 2,000 jobs a year and an extra billion dollars a year in income for that area. It goes to show you the direct correlation between water infrastructure and the benefit to that community. I know the people of Rockhampton were very appreciative of that. I have the member here today in the chamber. There are so many irrigation schemes that have been looked at through Queensland. We have 14 studies that we have now committed to in Queensland all the way from the south of the state from Emu Swamp right up into the member for Kennedy's neck of the woods.
We also understand the concern he brings forward about prickly acacia, and that is why we have a substantive amount of money that is on the table—$100 million in one section—towards research and development grants. Part of that is to look at the biosecurity measures. The member would be aware that we are already looking at some controls of biosecurity issues in that area. I think one of our great successes lately has been dealing with Panama race 4 up on the Atherton Tableland and making sure we get on top of that for the banana industry, which is worth about $600 million a year. This is the practical delivery of practical outcomes so that we can stand behind a beef industry, a banana industry and an agricultural industry—agricultural industries which are now our second biggest exports after iron ore.
We are also very aware that within the beef industry—and why it is so important—we currently have record beef prices. They have never, ever been higher. This is because we stand behind programs such as the live cattle trade, which are vitally important to the member for Kennedy's area. We were happy to announce just the other day the reopening of the live cattle trade into Japan, because that is also another vital component of making sure that we get the best returns back through the farm gate. We understand the vagaries of the climate; we understand what the drought has done; but for those in production now, especially in the cattle industries, they have never, ever seen better times in their lives than they have seen under a coalition government.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please update the House on the progress in arresting the deficit and debt burden on Australian taxpayers?
I thank the member for Petrie for his question and commend him on his re-election to this House. It was a stunning victory by the member for Petrie, who stood on the record of his contact with and support for constituents but also on the proven economic management of this government, and he was returned to ensure that he could continue to support that proven economic management of the coalition government.
We live in very uncertain economic times; we understand that. But, despite that, Australia continues to grow at one of the highest rates and real times of the advanced world. On top of that, we have just completed 25 years of consecutive economic growth. But we cannot take that for granted going forward. It is the product of some 30 years of economic reform—apart from six years when those opposite occupied these benches. On top of that, the issue we must deal with right now is ensuring that we increase our resilience in the face of any potential storm or threat. The two things we must do to achieve that are: we must arrest the debt that continues to grow, which we inherited from those opposite, and we must ensure resilience, strength and confidence in our banking and financial system, because those things underpin the prosperity of every business, every household and every government in this country.
We inherited a debt, as we know, of some $240 billion, and through the measures taken on this side of the House over many budgets the projected debt was reduced by $50 billion.
An opposition member: What is it now?
I am asked what it is now. Today it is $430 billion. Today our debt grows by $6 billion every month, because we have been through a program of seeking to arrest the debt. But we have had no support from those who sit opposite, who sought to sabotage the budget over the last three years. Today they have an opportunity to turn that around. Today I brought into this House a bill of $6.1 billion in savings on expenditure—not higher taxes; savings on expenditure. Every single dollar of those savings, the shadow Treasurer and the former finance minister built into the costings that they took to the last election. If that bill passes this place it will save, over the next 10 years, $30 billion in debt.
Those opposite have gone silent. They know they have to ask a question that has been put to them in this House, in this bill, which says: $6.1 billion is the start of the conversation that this parliament needs to have. We have $40 billion in savings and revenue measures that will fix the budget. They need to support them. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer and it refers to his previous answer. Can the Treasurer explain to the House why there is a black hole of more than $100 million in the costings of the omnibus bill introduced into parliament today? Can the Treasurer explain why the numbers on page 5 of the explanatory memorandum of the bill do not add up? Does the Treasurer stand by his claim in the House today that the bill improves the budget bottom line by more than $6 billion?
That's your Prime Minister who just walked away.
That is the Prime Minister who just got re-elected—unlike the other man at the table. That is who he is. This is the Prime Minister who just won an election. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition parade around this country as if he had just won an election. Well, I have got news for you: when the whistle has blown and you are on the wrong side of the scoreboard or you are on the wrong side of this House, you lost the election, buddy! And you lost the election because you did not have an economic plan.
Opposition members interjecting—
Government members interjecting—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The member for Griffith on a point of order.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The remarks ought to be directed to the chair and also the member ought to refer to members by their titles.
That is right: members must refer to other members by their titles, as I made—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The Minister for the Environment and Energy will cease interjecting, particularly when I am addressing the House. Members will refer to other members by their correct titles. I made that point this morning.
The Leader of the Opposition is no buddy of mine and I should not have referred to him in that way. I know who his buddies are—
The Treasurer will answer the question.
but that is not the question that has been put to me today.
No, it is not.
The bill that we put forward in this House today has more than $6 billion worth of expenditure savings.
Oh really? Have you checked?
That is what it says. What the member opposite put forward to the last election was to increase the deficit by $16½ billion. That is what he said to the Australian people—he said that the way to increase our financial resilience, to protect us against a storm, to grow the economy, was to tax it more and go into deficit by $16½ billion. Those opposite took that plan to the election and those opposite were rejected on the basis of that plan. On this side of the House we will continue with our measures—
Your bill doesn't add up, Scott.
The member for McMahon!
to ensure that we balance the budget, that we arrest the debt, that we put in place the measures that encourage businesses, particularly small businesses—
It doesn't add up.
The member for McMahon!
to invest and grow and employ. Those opposite have a simple plan—it is to tax and spend this economy.
The Treasurer will resume his seat.
Mr Burke interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I have not called him. I can hear him very clearly from there. He does not have to call me repetitively. I was asking the Treasurer to resume his seat. The Treasurer has concluded his answer.
Do you want me to explain why it doesn't add up?
The member for McMahon I have asked to cease interjecting twice. He is now warned.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on measures that the government is delivering to support dairy farmers? Is he aware of any alternative proposals?
I would like to think the honourable member for his question and congratulate him on his recent win in the seat of Murray. Obviously, coming from a dairy farming family, as he does, this is an issue that is very close to his heart. It is also good to acknowledge that in the gallery we have people from the Loddon Murray community and from Northern Mallee Leaders as well.
The dairy industry is going through some problems at the moment in Victoria, and this is no better articulated than by what is happening to the people who are supplying Murray Goulburn. We have made sure that we have got out there on the front foot and are starting to deal with those issues straightaway.
We are delivering a $579 million dairy support package to assist farmers and $555 million in dairy recovery concessional loans. Additional rural financial councillors are also being delivered. We have put $905,000 towards additional rural financial counsellors. We have $900,000 for Tactics for Tight Times. We have put $2 million on the table to establish a milk commodity price index and we are making sure that we get back to those who are hurting, by delivering the farm household allowance. There are over 200 people, in fact 208, now receiving farm household allowance. This gives about $1,000 a fortnight for a couple to make sure that they can keep some dignity in their lives. We have been having meetings with Fonterra and Murray Goulburn—we had a dairy symposium—and tomorrow I will have meetings with Farmer Power. I will also be having meetings with the Western Australian dairy farmers to make sure that we are at the forefront of trying to assist these people.
We have also instigated section 95H of part VIIA of the Competition and Consumer Act to further investigations into Murray Goulburn, which will give us greater transparency in the relationship between the dairy farmer and the processor and between the processor and the retailer, to make sure that we get a proper look, so that we can see that there is decency and fairness in contractual obligations, as well as what we are doing to assist them on the ground.
There have been questions asked about concessional loans. There are now 26 that have basically been approved. Two have been taken up; the other 24 can then take them up whenever they wish to, as is their right. The Victorian government is responsible for that. Other people are looking for other, maybe entrepreneurial, forms of somehow dealing with these problems. I have been looking around, because you asked for other ideas at other, entrepreneurial, forms of financing. One could not go past a greater form of entrepreneurial financing than that of Senator Sam Dastyari. He has a truly novel form of crowdfunding. I do not know what you would call it. We look forward to asking what the Leader of the Opposition is going to do with Senator Sam Dastyari. (Time expired)
I would like to welcome some former members. I inform the House that we have present this afternoon Mr Stuart Henry, the former member for Hasluck—welcome to you. I can see former South Australian Senator Grant Chapman—welcome to you. I am advised that former Western Australia senator Mr Ross Lightfoot is also with us as well.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister to confirm the reports today that he and the Treasurer were in favour of making changes to negative gearing before the minister for immigration rolled them in cabinet, arguing there was 'political value in doing nothing so as to attack Labor's changes with clean hands.' Isn't this yet another case of the Prime Minister with no authority being dragged to a position by the right wing of his party?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Can I just say that we do not comment on cabinet discussions other than to say that the story recounted by Mr Van Onselen, apparently in his book, has no basis in fact at all. Indeed, it is a reminder of Mark Twain's very wise words that 'only fiction has to be credible', and in this case it is not even credible.
The facts are these: Labor's negative gearing policy was announced in a rush on 13 February this year. It was ill thought out, was ill considered, would have smashed the residential housing market and was profoundly unjust. There is his claim as this sort of latter day Robin Hood, this latter-day champion of the poor and oppressed, this sort of latter-day Jack Lang taking on the banks—he is so tough. What about those employers he did deals with to sell out his low-paid-employee members? He wasn't so tough then. In all my years I have never seen anything as sycophantic as a Labor politician in the presence of a billionaire and I reckon this Leader of the Opposition would absolutely qualify for that.
The Labor Party policy on negative gearing would have deprived hundreds of thousands of hardworking Australians from being able to make an investment in property and offset the losses against their wages or their salary. What it expressly did not do was prevent people with large investment incomes from offsetting rental losses against their investment income. So this was a policy that was so ill thought out it was actually calculated, designed, to undermine the ability of wage earners and salary earners—policeman and nurses and teachers—union members—from making an investment. But wealthy people with lots of assets, with big funds, with lots of dividends and interest, and income from various properties would be able to keep on negative gearing. This was slipshod. It was dangerous. It was calculated to undermine investment, and therefore it was calculated to undermine jobs. That is precisely why the government would have no part of it.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the coalition's progress on delivering on the Paris agreement on climate change? Would the minister outline how the international agreement is in Australia's national interest?
I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and I congratulate her on her election to this place. I have campaigned with her and she will make a fine representative for the people of Chisholm.
This afternoon the Turnbull government will table the Paris agreement on climate change to enable consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to hopefully enable ratification of this historic agreement by the end of this year. Ratification by Australia will demonstrate our firm and enduring commitment to tackling the global challenge of climate change. Members will be aware that on 12 December last year all 196 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change signed onto the Paris agreement. The Australian government played a significant role in negotiating that agreement. Indeed, I chaired what was known as the umbrella group of the non-EU developed economies, including Japan, Canada, Russia, the United States and New Zealand—and I am delighted to see Minister Bennett here today. She confirms that New Zealand has also recently tabled the Paris agreement for consideration by the New Zealand parliament.
Our 2030 target of reducing Australia's contribution to global emissions by 26 to 28 per cent from 2005 levels was in line with other developed economies and it is already apparent that the initiatives that we have put in place are reducing emissions—without putting a tax on electricity and driving up electricity prices. Australian businesses are already taking advantage of the opportunities presented by a global lower carbon economy, whether it be in renewable energy technologies, cleaner transport systems, sustainable cities or indeed agricultural productivity.
We are also focusing on helping our friends in the Pacific. The Prime Minister announced in Paris a commitment to $1 billion over five years for climate finance to support our friends in the Pacific for sustainable communities and sustainable economies. We are also using our position as co-chair of the Green Climate Fund to ensure that there is a focus on the Pacific, on our region, and we have already ensured that $200 million worth of funding from the Green Climate Fund will be directed to the Pacific. I can assure members of this House and members of the Australian public that ratifying the Paris agreement on climate change is in Australia's national interest.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In this morning's cabinet leak it has been revealed that the Prime Minister and Treasurer were rolled on reforms to negative gearing by ministers loyal to the member for Warringah, including the minister for immigration, the minister for the environment and the Minister for Social Services. If the Prime Minister and Treasurer cannot even win an economic argument in the cabinet, isn't it clear that the member for Warringah is right and that this is a government that is in office but not in power?
All I can say to the honourable member is that I refer him to my earlier answer and remind him of the very wise insight, which I suspect has always applied in this place: those who are talking do not know and those who know are not talking.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Canning will begin his question again. The clock will start again. The member for Canning has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on the government's efforts to boost the defence industry, especially in the great state of Western Australia? How will the government's investment in the defence industry build Australia's defence capability and create jobs?
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Hunter will cease interjecting.
I am absolutely delighted to get a question from the member for Canning, who managed to increase his primary vote by three per cent at the most recent election. I congratulate him on his re-election. He knows how to get the votes, and good luck to him.
This is a very important question. Western Australia is at the centre of our defence industry now and into the future. Through the defence white paper, the Integrated Investment Program, the Defence Industry Policy Statement, this government is putting $195 billion of new investment into our Defence Force capability over the next 10 years. That is a dramatic and gigantic investment in defence, which follows of course the Labor Party's period in office when they reduced our defence spending to the lowest level of GDP since 1938. So this government is repairing the damage that Labor did to our defence forces and our defence industry—it is a fact.
My first visit as the defence industry minister was to Western Australia. I went to Henderson with Senator Linda Reynolds, who put together a terrific program, and looked at the amazing, fantastic industry they have at Henderson, not far from the member's electorate. I visited many of the businesses there—like the ASC, Austal, Civmec and many others—who are investing themselves and with the government's support in the defence industry. The Turnbull government wants the defence industry to be a pillar of our economy into the future and this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to take this increase in spending, this very significant investment, and turn it into a burgeoning domestic defence industry that provides jobs and growth in our economy. These are not old-fashioned jobs; these are advanced manufacturing, high-tech jobs. They are very valuable jobs. When this money is invested now and into the future it will give us a chance for a real export industry in defence industry. A lot of jobs are created when you create a defence industry. It is manufacturing. Manufacturing is still one of our largest employers in the Australian economy.
I am very delighted that the government is showing that it takes defence industry seriously by appointing the first dedicated defence industry minister, and I am very glad that I have the opportunity under Malcolm Turnbull, under the Prime Minister, to work hard to invest that money across Australia, to grow, to travel overseas and to expand the exports of the defence industry. I am going to Washington soon to promote the joint strike fighter program, to promote Australia as a maintenance and sustainment hub for the joint strike fighter. I will soon go to other countries around the world to promote our Australian defence industry, which Labor thinks is a huge joke because of course when they were in government they made not one decision in six years to promote our defence industry. They built not one vessel. They did nothing. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Leaks from cabinet are a criminal offence, punishable by two years in prison, under section 70 of the Crimes Act. So has the Prime Minister referred these latest negative-gearing leaks to the Australian Federal Police for investigation? Can we expect raids on cabinet ministers' offices soon?
I thank the honourable and learned member for his question. As I pointed out earlier, the version of events proffered in the book that was extracted in the newspaper today simply is wrong. So there was no leak; it is an invention.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I remind the minister that new figures on the weekend showed Medicare investment and bulk-billing at record highs under our Turnbull government. Will the minister please explain the government's plans to build an even stronger Medicare?
It is a great pleasure to take a question from the member for Bennelong, whose work on medicines and pharmacy is well known in this place. The member for Bennelong knows only too well something that underscores this government's commitment to health care—in particular, the sustainability of Medicare and the PBS—and that is that, in the last three years of coalition government, we have listed three times as many medicines as Labor did, at a cost of $4.5 billion. In fact, a health minister in the Labor government refused to list the recommendations of an expert committee because, remember, what you cannot pay for, you cannot deliver.
It is interesting, because this morning we dealt, in the first order of business, with bullying and thuggery on building sites across Australia; and, really, that was matched, well matched, by the bullying, thuggery and intimidation from Labor's union mates during the election campaign when it came to Medicare—sanctioned, endorsed, by members in this place, I am sure. And the reason I am sure is that, when the Leader of the Opposition was asked on 7.30
Ms Collins interjecting—
Member for Franklin!
Ms Collins interjecting—
The member for Franklin is warned!
'Is this Medicare sale really what you believe?' he said nothing. The bullying and thuggery of Labor's union mates, ringing up elderly pensioners late at night—
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Throsby does not have the call.
Government members interjecting—
The member for Throsby will leave under 94(a). He did not have the call.
Opposition members: Whitlam!
Whitlam. If there is still a Throsby, don't leave! The member for Whitlam.
The member for Whitlam then left the chamber .
It is extraordinary. I know there is sensitivity about 'Mediscare', because the fakery of Labor was well and truly revealed and is continuing to be revealed. Fake texts from a fake source, based on a false proposition, were not denied by the Leader of the Opposition.
The reality, as we all know, is that Medicare has never been healthier or had more spent on it than under the Turnbull government. In fact, in the last year, there were 17 million more bulk-billed GP consultations under us than there were under Labor. Record dollars spent on the health system mean a record level of investment, concern and commitment, which you do see from our side of the House. The politics of smear and the politics of fear, which are all that we saw from Labor during the election campaign, are going to be more than matched by our ongoing reforms and our ongoing commitment, by our investment in healthcare homes and in the Medicare benefits schedule modernisation, and by our investment of record dollars in mental health—in all of the things that we have started that we will continue and that we absolutely believe in.
My question is to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister deposed the member for Warringah, he said:
… ultimately the Prime Minister has not been capable of providing the economic leadership our nation needs …
But isn't it the case that, almost one year later, the Prime Minister is still following the economic plan of the very person he deposed? Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he promised new economic leadership?
I can only assume that the honourable member was not paying attention during budget night, because she knows that we set out in the budget a whole range of reforms, including reforms to superannuation, reforms to enterprise tax, reforms to personal tax—all of which were new reforms and new proposals—and they have all been presented and they will be taken through this parliament, the 45th Parliament, and in this session, consistent with the mandate we received from the Australian people at the election.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Since the closure of the Alinta power station in Port Augusta, wholesale electricity prices have more than doubled in South Australia, not only putting significant strain on the householder but having a catastrophic impact on high-consumption heavy industry. Can the minister please inform the House as to what course of action can be taken to address this issue?
Just before I call the minister, earlier in question time I asked him to cease interjecting. That was my error; it was the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for Grey for his question, and note his strong commitment to getting lower electricity prices for the people of his electorate, whether they are businesses or households.
The member for Grey is right to say that electricity prices have been on the rise in South Australia. In fact, in one day in the month of July, the price of electricity per megawatt-hour—the wholesale price—went from $500 an hour to $14,000 an hour. Now, there were actually a number of reasons for that increase. There was an upgrade to the Heywood interconnector. The fact is that there was also a spike in gas prices. There was also high demand due to a cold snap in both South Australia and Victoria. It was also because South Australia has a high supply of intermittent energy, with more than 40 per cent of its energy coming from wind and solar. It was against that backdrop that we as the COAG energy ministers met recently and agreed on a range of important economic reforms, particularly to boost liquidity and transparency in domestic gas markets.
We also agreed to rein in network costs, which include up to 50 per cent of the household bill, by undertaking a review of the limited merits review process as well as trying to reduce the red tape in terms of interconnectors between states. But we have to point out that electricity prices went up 101 per cent under those opposite—101 per cent in the six years that they were in government and on their own policy. On their own policy, it is modelled to increase by 78 per cent.
Those opposite have a policy to go to 50 per cent renewables and to reduce emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, but it is a bit too generous to call it a policy, because this is what the member for Hunter, a fellow cabinet minister, said last year on the Bolt report. He was asked about Labor's climate change policy and he said:
No, no, hang on a minute, Andrew. It's not a policy. It's an announcement of an aspiration.
He then added:
You have to have goals in life.
Then the question came to the member for Hunter: how much will your policies on climate change cost? This is the member for Hunter: 'Well, no-one knows.' That is the truth of it, Mr Speaker—no-one knows.
That is cold comfort for the single mother with three children in Port Augusta. That is cold comfort for the cement maker in Port Adelaide. Mr Speaker, you would have thought that those opposite would have learnt after their carbon tax, their cash for clunkers, their citizens assembly. Only the coalition can be trusted to get down electricity prices while transitioning to a lower emissions future.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that all but one of the Prime Minister's Senate backbench, led by Senator Cory Bernardi, are defying the Prime Minister by sponsoring a bill which will give licence to hate speech. Is this just another case of what the member for Warringah describes as 'a government that is in office but not in power'?
As the honourable member will recall, in the lead-up to the 2013 election, the coalition undertook to review and reform section 18C. The matter was considered by cabinet; and some proposals for amendment were made. They were controversial; there is no question about that. Mr Abbott, my predecessor as Prime Minister, announced that the government would not proceed with them, and that was the announcement that was made in that context. Since then the government has not had—neither the government I lead nor the government that Mr Abbott, the member for Warringah, led—any plan or proposal to amend section 18C. We have other, far more important priorities to deal with—the budget repair agenda that I spoke about earlier, the industrial relations and workplace reform agenda, which I spoke about earlier. Backbenchers are entitled to seek to move private members' motions, as you know.
There is a wide range of opinions in the community about section 18C and the language in it. But I can assure you, Mr Speaker, and I will repeat what I said, that the government has no plans to amend section 18C. It is a debate that has been going on for some time as to whether the boundary on free speech, if you like, is set at the right point. There are distinguished people learned in the law—some of the member for Isaacs' colleagues at the Victorian bar, for example—who believe changes should be made and there are others, of course, that believe it should stay as it is. As far as the government is concerned, we have no plans to change 18C.
My constituency question is to the Prime Minister. On behalf or Corangamite constituents, I remind the Prime Minister of his recent visit to my electorate to meet with our wonderful CFA volunteers. Can the Prime Minister update the House on how our government will protect volunteer emergency services organisations, including the CFA in Victoria?
I thank the honourable member for her question and recall that it was just after Christmas that Lucy and I joined her when we visited the fire devastated town of Wye River in her electorate on the Surf Coast of Victoria. There were many houses destroyed by that fire, but not one life was lost. That was because of the outstanding job done by the CFA volunteers, led by brigade captain Roy Moriarty. They developed a plan; they worked to that plan; and they got everybody out.
They are part of the heart and soul of that community. They are heroes, and we stand shoulder to shoulder with them. It was terrific to join the member for Corangamite in catching up more recently with CFA volunteers at the Highton Bowls Club, as I did with volunteer brigades in the Speaker's electorate at Coldstream in the Yarra Valley. We are inspired by the commitment, the courage, the professionalism of the volunteers of the Country Fire Authority, all 60,000 of them, right across Victoria. Again and again, they put their lives on the line to keep Victorians safe. They put themselves between Victorians and their property and horrific fires of over 1,000 degrees Celsius. We stand with them.
As we promised during the election campaign, we would stand up for the CFA volunteers in the face of an assault on their independence by the Andrews Labor government in Victoria. We are not going to stand back and allow a union takeover to undermine their autonomy. All of these men and women are volunteers; they are not paid to do it. They are doing it because of their big hearts and their love of the community. We said we would change the Fair Work Act to ensure the CFA volunteers could not be subordinated to the United Firefighters Union, as the Labor government in Victoria proposed to do. Today I introduced that legislation. Mr Speaker, in a nutshell, this legislation will make it unlawful to include a term in an enterprise agreement which undermines or disables the ability of that volunteer organisation to work with its volunteers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition, in particular, to support this legislation as a Victorian. He should stand with us and support the speedy passage of this bill. The sooner it is passed, the sooner the future of the CFA volunteers will be assured. Their autonomy will be supported. Their morale will be reinforced and restored. The sooner that is done, the sooner—and better—the safety of Victorians will be assured.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in an earlier answer, said there were no current plans to change the wording of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, but he did not endorse the wording which is currently in place and has been in place for more than 20 years. Can the Prime Minister provide any example of a comment that is currently prohibited by 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act that the government believes should be permitted? Will the Prime Minister rule out any change this term?
Ms Collins interjecting—
I remind the member for Franklin she has been warned. The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, you may already have been about to rule on this question, but the point is that under the current standing orders he cannot ask the Prime Minister for a legal opinion, and clearly he is asking him for a legal opinion.
On the point of order, the standing orders do prohibit questions asking a legal opinion. The mere absence of the words 'legal opinion' does not make the question in order. I am going to give the Manager of Opposition Business a chance to rephrase his question, but at the moment—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
I have asked about the government policy under the current act.
I have ruled on the point of order. In my judgement, it does ask a legal opinion, certainly in the second half. I have offered an opportunity to rephrase the question. I am not going to have a negotiation. If you would like to rephrase the question, rephrase it, otherwise we will move on.
Will the Prime Minister rule out any changes to the Racial Discrimination Act this term?
A government member interjecting—
I have given him an opportunity to rephrase the question. He has rephrased it.
Under the standing orders, of course, supplementary questions are not allowed. Clearly that question is so diametrically different to the question he was going to ask that he must think it is a supplementary question. Therefore, it cannot be in order because supplementary questions are not in order.
It is not a supplementary question, because there was not a question that was answered that would allow a supplementary question. The Manager of Opposition Business has asked his question.
I repeat what I said to the member for Isaacs: the government has no plans to change section 18C.
A question for the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment: how is the tourism industry supporting the transitioning Australian economy? Are there any policies that could put the growth of the tourism industry at risk in my electorate of Bowman and South-East Queensland?
I thank the member for Bowman for his question. Of course, I appreciate the fact that he is a strong champion for the 3½ thousand local tourism workers who are employed in the tourism industry in his electorate.
I was pleased today to see the results of the international visitor survey: some 7.2 million international tourists, which represents an increase on last year of some 10 per cent, spending a record of $38.1 billion, which also represents an increase of 14 per cent year-on-year. I have been particularly pleased, as indeed the coalition has been, by the fact that what we have seen from these results is continued strength with respect to China tourism. China tourism numbers are up some 1.1 million, which represents an increase of 23 per cent. They stayed 41.6 million nights—an increase of 13 per cent—spending about $8.9 billion, which is an increase of 27 per cent. This is great news for Australia's tourism industry.
You can understand why the member for Bowman and, indeed, the member for Brisbane and the member for Ryan, will be pleased that we have seen spending in Brisbane increase from $145 million to nearly $2 billion. Indeed, where the rainforest meets the reef in Leichhardt, the member for Leichhardt would be pleased to know, the numbers are up very strongly—by $86 million to some $1.1 billion.
In Corangamite, I know that the Geelong region is turning into a tourism superstar with increases of $82 million, which represents 38 per cent. Likewise, on the Gold Coast there are strong numbers with increases there of 14 per cent to $1.27 billion.
I note that the member for Bowman was particularly interested in some of the policy threats in this space. I have to say that the real risk to a strong and vibrant future for Australia's tourism industry, you will not be surprised to know, is the Australian Labor Party, because the Labor Party has form when it comes to choking the golden goose that is Australia's tourism industry.
When the Labor Party was last in government we saw that they put in place record tourism taxes consistent with Labor's big taxing, big spending approach. We saw, for example, that they put in place record increases on the passenger movement charge. It took the coalition to freeze the passenger movement charge so that Australia was a more competitive destination. It took the Australian coalition government to put record funding of $629 million into marketing of Australia around the world. Thanks to that record funding we have seen the results as a direct consequence of investment in the sector.
The so-called policy that Labor talks about is a one-pager of platitudes that proposed ripping money away from international marketing, and spending it on domestic marketing, for example, where already the states and territories spend some $700 million— (Time expired).
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's failure to get his way on superannuation and negative gearing, his failure to implement lessons learned about cutting Medicare and his failure to hold back the right wing of his party on racial discrimination. When will the Prime Minister start leading his party, not following his party?
You know, it seems a long time ago, really, but it was actually only yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition was promising a more constructive and civil debate in the parliament, when he was going to work with us and address the problems of the nation with big ideas in a constructive and pragmatic way. And what we have had, from the moment the House opened this morning, is just one political stunt after another—questions based on an edifice of false premises. It is the same old Labor. The election did happen, and they are still in opposition, but nothing has changed on their side. They have no interest in constructive engagement. They have nothing to say in terms of dealing with the big challenges we face. It is all about politics, all about partisanship.
We talk about leadership, and the Leader of the Opposition expresses great sympathy, he says, for people that have been done wrong by banks, and we should have great sympathy for them. But what is the difference? We are taking action. We are ensuring that the agencies that protect them and ensure these things do not happen again are strengthened. We are ensuring that the methods for resolving disputes with banks are improved and advanced. We are taking action now, because we know what the problems are, just as he does. He knows what the problems are. Most of them arose when he was the Minister for Financial Services. He should know all about it, and in those days he was able to come up with a few ideas. He pioneered some reforms. He did. But now he has become an idea-free zone. It is as though he has been programmed by the member for Isaacs. It is as though he is a robot, directed only by the Bar Association, determined to pitch hundreds of millions of dollars into the legal profession's pockets. Not one dollar of that will go to the people who have been dealt with poorly or inadequately by the banks. Not one dollar of that will result in a new law or a new regulation or a new ombudsman or a new tribunal that will resolve disputes.
What it is is a slogan. He has a slogan. He wants a royal commission. That is what he wants: he wants a royal commission, and he has nothing of substance—not an idea. I wrote to him only the other day, and one of the things I asked him to do was to propose some constructive ideas to improve the regulation of financial services. I am still waiting. This is someone who sat on the board of one of the biggest super funds—one of the biggest shareholders in the banks, in fact. He sat on that board. He was the minister. But today he has no ideas.
My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. Much of rural Australia, including my electorate of Flynn, has suffered from poor mobile phone coverage for many years. Can the minister update the House on the effects that the government's Mobile Black Spot Program is having in our rural communities? Thank you.
I thank the member for Flynn for his question about mobile coverage in rural and remote Australia. Labor thought they might get the member for Flynn, but they could not catch Kenny. The member for Flynn is back, and the reason the member for Flynn is back is that he has been standing up for his constituents and he has been focused on the issues that his constituents are concerned about, and one of the issues people in Flynn, as in so much of rural and remote Australia, are concerned about is improving mobile phone coverage.
Of course, in six years of Labor, how much did Labor spend on improving mobile phone coverage? How much did Labor spend in six years? They spent nothing. They spent nothing, and it required a coalition government to come in and develop a program to deliver improved mobile phone coverage in rural and remote Australia. When I had the chance to visit the electorate of the member for Flynn in 2014, some 50 people turned up at a public meeting to talk about mobile coverage, because they were so concerned about this issue.
Of course, the member for Flynn has delivered, because just in round 1 of the Mobile Black Spot Program 10 base stations are committed to, to be delivered in the electorate of Flynn: eight to be delivered by Telstra and two to be delivered by Vodafone in locations like Durong, Ubobo, the Capricorn Highway and Dingo. It is a long way from Balmain to Dingo. It is a long way from Footscray to Dingo. You cannot expect Labor to deliver much in Dingo, but you can rely on the coalition to deliver outcomes for Dingo—to deliver outcomes for rural and remote Australia—because rural and remote Australia is overwhelmingly represented by the coalition, and we are listening to the concerns of people in regional, rural and remote Australia, and we are delivering.
That is why we committed $100 million in round 1 of the Mobile Black Spot Program, leveraging money from the private sector and state governments to come up with total funding of $385 million. There is a further $120 million under rounds 2 and 3, and we are getting on with delivering improved mobile coverage for people in rural and remote Australia. In fact, Telstra recently announced that already 60 base stations under this program have been opened. The Turnbull government is delivering. This is the term of delivery and, thanks to members like the member for Flynn, we are delivering outcomes and responding to the concerns of our community.
After that stirring answer, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
(): I present the Auditor-General's audit reports Nos 1 to 9 for 2016-17. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
(—) (): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
There goes the member for Warringah. I did not like what he stood for, but at least he stood for something.
Today we have just been through question time, and we have witnessed a Prime Minister who we have discovered, just before the election, got rolled in cabinet on key economic issues. He did not have the fortitude to fight then for what he knew to be right. He and his Treasurer, we have discovered, put forward reforms to reform negative gearing in the national interest. Then, after three or four speeches, they backed off and went to an election instead with the crass expediency of saying, 'We know the issue has got to be reformed, but we'd rather kick Labor with clean hands then deal with the national interest.' This nation desperately needs leadership, and we are not getting leadership from this government. I said during the election, in one of those debates—when I could pin the Prime Minister down to a debate—when he was running a scare campaign on boats, 'You should be ashamed of yourself,' but then I did not even know the half of it.
I am ashamed that in this election the Prime Minister of Australia, knowing what this nation needs to do to reform our balance sheet and to make fiscal repair that is fair—I am ashamed that we have a coward for a leader who would not tell the truth to the Australian people. There is no leadership in this government. There is a lot of weakness and a lot of cowardice and a lot of backbiting. This will be the government for the next three years, perhaps: have a policy, get rolled, give up and attack Labor instead. Unfortunately, after one day of parliament, we are back where we left off.
This is the summary of the government and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is a man with no authority and no agenda. He only reacts to events—and, by the way, he has got a treasurer with no idea at all. And there is leadership vacuum in this country. But, of course, politics is like nature: it abhors a vacuum. And the hardliners are queueing up to replace the vacuum left by this Prime Minister who will not lead.
The other day the Prime Minister made a plea for the 'sensible centre'. You cannot be in the sensible centre when you take your marching orders from the right. You cannot be in the sensible centre when you are cutting Medicare, because Medicare is at the heart, at the centre of Australian life and, if you cut that, you are certainly nowhere near it.
This Prime Minister famously, in his first 10 months of stewardship, used to talk about: 'Isn't it the most exciting time to be alive in Australia.' But I tell you he does not say that so much. I had a look at the supporting cast of the 74 other members of the government. I have seen gloomier expressions, but I cannot think where. I was reminded of that series The Walking Dead. They look happier on that than they do in here. But, of course, I said 74. It is 73. There is one person for whom it has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian: Mr Abbott, the member for Warringah.
The problem is that this government are so accident prone in the last two months it is remarkable. In the Labor Party, if someone makes a mistake, the diligent media are all over us for weeks and weeks. But there is good news if you are in the coalition and you make a mistake: you just have to keep your head down for a few hours because there will be someone else coming to the rescue—that is if you cannot find a poor old ABS middle-level public servant to wheel out and take the blame. But the new good news in this government is the Prime Minister will always back you up, because when you make a mistake, trust me, the stopwatch is on and there is Malcolm Turnbull to the rescue with an even bigger mistake before you can say, 'Boo'. But, of course, in the last two months we have seen some of these examples. We have got the shocker on census night, followed up by the Prime Minister humiliating the foreign minister. The problem for Malcolm Turnbull is he thinks everyone is anintriguer like him. In the case of the foreign minister he might well be right, but the point about it is that he humiliated his foreign minister. Then we have got NBN: they will do anything not to report the facts on the NBN. We have got the bungling of the royal commission into juvenile justice in the Northern Territory. It was the right idea but the problem is: when you have got this mob in charge you know it will be poorly executed. And then we now have the great moral challenge of budget repair.
Negative gearing—we found out that the Prime Minister was running an empty scare campaign because he himself wanted to embark on changes. Did you notice the weasel words our Prime Minister used? He said, 'Labor's proposals are slipshod.' He did not say it was bad topic to tackle, did he? You just get the sense with our friend that he would be so good at doing his job he could run both sides of the argument. The thing about him is that he probably thinks that because he does not believe in anything. He could just as easily run the case to reform negative gearing as to oppose it.
The problem, though, is that when he ran his scare campaign I do not think that anyone expected him to come up with this alternative housing policy: telling young people locked out of the housing market to get on eBay and get yourself a rich parent. That is one of the great policies of all time. But we do know why they changed their policy on negative gearing, and we have discovered it from Mr Van Onselen's book: the real person running the economic strategy of the government, the shadowy figure who rolled the Treasurer and rolled the Prime Minister and who is affectionately known as 'he-who-must-not-be-defamed'—you've got it, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. He is doing a ventriloquist doll act for the member for Warringah. It is a remarkable thing; when Peter Dutton speaks you can hardly see Tony Abbott's lips move, but, believe me, they are. Monkey pod economics is now the economic strategy of the day.
The Prime Minister on superannuation said that his policy was ironclad. We saw the weasel worming of his lines on superannuation: 'Of course we mean what we say, but we're going to look at the detail.' That is code for backflip, retreat, back away and undermine the stability of our superannuation system. Every backbencher in the coalition is openly talking at Aussies about superannuation. Twelve government members have opposed it, two government ministers, one state government. What Mr Turnbull does not understand about all of these issues, just as he does not understand non-economic issues, is that when he gives into the bullies they do not go away and say, 'Thank you very much.' They come back for more. There is no clearer example than section 18C. Minutes after that moving, respectful welcome to country ceremony, powerbroker and indeed future representative of the United Nations in a true act of irony—I speak of Senator Bernardi—was collecting signatures for a plan to repeal section 18C. Some of those people were watching the Prime Minister speak and welcome to country, then had the next item on the agenda to sign the petition to undermine their boss.
Where is the Prime Minister? On section 18C, he does not have the luxury of just pretending that it is not happening around him; he has to make a clear decision. Is he on the side of multicultural Australia or is he in the grip of his right-wing fringe? The fact is on climate change, marriage equality, budget repair, superannuation and section 18C, he has no authority. He is the hollowest of hollow men. His commitment to his policy values is a mile wide and an inch deep. His only manoeuvre is retreat.
What we see now, though, is he gives us a lecture instead. He wants cooperation, bonhomie. He talks about the sensible centre, but he does not get it. Mr Turnbull, in his last answer, was critical of Labor. But what he does not understand is—he wants Labor just to capitulate. He wants us to accept that he is the boss and we should fall into line. Why should we do that when his own government will not even do it to him? To quote the famous wisdom of Darryl Kerrigan: 'Tell them he's dreaming.' We will stand up for our principles. We will not take lectures entitled 'Just do it my way'.
This Prime Minister is not strong enough to tell his powerful backbench what to do, so why should we when he verbally clapped three times, 'Stand up and say, "Where are we going."' He does not even know where he is going. His backbenchers do not listen to him. We will negotiate. We will compromise. We will work towards consensus. We will be cooperative. While he is introducing $50 billion tax cuts to the top end of town, while he is lowering the tax burden on the most well-off in society, whilst he has cutting Medicare—and he keeps pretending he is not cutting Medicare, and I do not mind if he is in a state of denial, frankly, because we will talk about Medicare every day to the next election—one way or the other, he will learn his lesson.
How can he talk about ordinary people tightening their belts when he will not do anything about the banks? We have seen his attitude on the banking royal commission, and what a dishonest camouflage it is. He told us all on 10 April, 'The regulator has sufficient power.' Then on 20 April, he backflipped for the first time. But then, again, after the election, he came up with a preposterous idea of setting up a parliamentary committee, which is even weaker than the regulators, to do the job he concedes the regulators are not doing. But, never mind, he has come up with his fourth policy position: he has sent out Kelly O'Dwyer to the rescue.
Opposition members interjecting—
Okay, nothing more needs to be said!
The truth of the matter is we are prepared to help. We are prepared to help him on superannuation. We are prepared to help him on negative gearing. We discovered that he would like us to help him. But we are sick and tired of his arrogant and meaningless lectures. He will learn the hard way, I suspect, that if you want to cooperate, you have got to cooperate in return. I say to him: back off Medicare before you start telling everyone else what to do on your agenda. (Time expired)
Before I call the assistant minister, I realise this is a free-flowing debate, but members will refer to other members by their titles not by their names. If we keep to that, the debate will continue.
I am delighted to have the opportunity here to talk about leadership. But I am somewhat surprised that those opposite want to focus on leadership. In fact, I could spend some time talking about the 10 minutes of whingeing we just heard and how that might equate to leadership—and clearly it does not. When I think of leadership, I go to the facts. The first set of facts we should look at is how those opposite governed prior to 2013: prior to the time we came into government. Those opposite do not like talking about that—they have got selective amnesia for anything prior to the last couple of years—but I think it is an important starting point as we talk about leadership. And, of course, what we saw there was their definition of leadership, which was a surplus converted to a totally unprecedented deficit; and they call that leadership. We saw 1,200 deaths at sea; and they call that leadership. We saw endless program failures with pink batts and school halls; and they call that leadership.
We could focus on that history for the next 10 minutes, but I will not, because I will focus on the more recent failures of leadership we are seeing from those opposite. The first of those is that we saw them commit to $6 billion of savings, which they are unprepared to commit to now that the election is over. They pretended, as they always do, to be fiscal conservatives. But where is the fiscal conservatism now? It has disappeared. It has disappeared now that the Australian people are not about to vote.
The second failure of leadership is around superannuation. We saw those opposite bank the savings that we committed on superannuation. Where is the policy? We have not seen the policy. Again, no policy—the fiscal conservatives without fiscally conservative policies. Third, they pretended, again, to be conservatives on border protection. They were going to lead on border protection, but 30 of them—many of them here; put your hands up if you like—refused to support their policy for offshore detention centres. Again, a failure of leadership.
Finally, they pretended that they wanted to lead on gay marriage. But when it came to the opportunity to have a plebiscite to resolve this issue, again, they were unprepared to support a very clear measure for which we have a mandate from the most recent election.
Now, in contrast, the Turnbull government will be defined by delivery through collaboration. It is the absolute heart of our Australian democracy that we negotiate better outcomes for all Australians. Australians are looking for leadership for the people. To that end, I am firmly convinced that the Senate will be a better one than the last one: not leadership driven by the partisan politics of those opposite.
Now, let me focus for a few minutes on the economy—this is where we need leadership and we are seeing leadership from this side of the House. We know the Australian economy is growing at about three per cent a year—that is a striking number; that is a good number, by world standards, amongst developed countries. Business conditions and consumer confidence are well above their long-term average and we need to ensure that the right foundations for a strong economy remain in the years ahead.
We are focused on a lower taxing, lower spending government. There is no equivalence between raising taxes and reducing spending. They are not the same thing. You cannot call a tax increase a save. But those opposite want to do it. Do you know the reason? It is very simple. When you raise taxes you slow the economy. Any economist will tell you that. Those opposite wanted taxes on housing. They wanted taxes on investment, on capital gains. As we have just heard about, they wanted taxes on electricity. All of this will slow the economy and it is not the sort of economic leadership Australia needs to be prosperous in the years to come.
This morning the Turnbull government introduced the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill into the parliament to give effect to $6 billion in budget savings—
Opposition members interjecting—
Clearly those opposite do not want to commit to $6 billion worth of budget savings. What is your number—is it three, is it two? How much are you going to commit to? We do not know. What we do know is that they are wibbly wobbly; that is what we can be absolutely sure of. Anyway, this will give effect to $6 billion in budget savings that are necessary to assist in the critical task of arresting our debt and, just as importantly, protecting the economy against significant economic shocks. We live in a world where the prospect of economic shocks is significant. We do not know what the Chinese economy will do in the coming years. We do not know how the rest of the developed world will grow in the coming years. Those shocks, those speed humps, those potholes are absolutely the reason why the Australian people should be, and are, asking for the people in this place to be fiscal conservatives.
The government inherited $240 billion in accumulated deficits and a gross debt of $370 billion. But that is not the worst of it—we inherited locked-in programs with a growth rate in spending of seven per cent a year. There were landmines everywhere—because those opposite love to spend and they love to tax. And the Australian people know and understand that. As a result, Australian taxpayers are saddled with higher interest payments which are currently worth $16 billion, one of the largest line items in the federal budget. We are focused on preventing these scenarios that I have described and arresting our debt by making the necessary decisions to restore budget balance. That is exactly what we are seeing in the omnibus bill that we have put before the House today.
This bill is an opportunity for the new parliament to heed the challenge and promote this nation to a path of stronger growth and a stronger and more prosperous economy, and it is critical that those opposite come to the table and become the real fiscal conservatives that they pretended to be in the election campaign. The ratings agencies have warned us that, if we do not fix this problem, it is a very serious issue for this country. We will be faced with higher interest rates. We will be faced with a far more dangerous situation for important spending programs such as health, education and infrastructure. So this bill emphasises our commitment to future generations of Australians. This is a moral cause. This is a moral issue. Are the opposition going to leave future generations of younger Australians saddled with debt that they will have to repay for years to come because the opposition were not prepared to take the necessary steps to protect our economy, our kids, our grandkids and every future Australian from the fiscal disaster that they create every time they are in government? There was one exception—the Hawke-Keating era. But they are gone now. They are ghosts of the past.
There is a second, very important initiative that we have brought to the House today—the building and construction industry bill. We want to ensure that the rule of law prevails on building sites across the country. We want more roads, hospitals, schools and houses—because they do not cost what they should. Anyone who has been involved in the construction industry over the years knows that the lawlessness there, the lawlessness that we saw in the royal commission, is costing every Australian. Everyone who goes to school, who goes to hospital, who uses a road or who uses a railway is paying more than they should—and, most importantly, every Australian taxpayer is paying more than they should for these things because the opposition is not prepared to act on a very obvious measure that everyone knows is absolutely necessary to bring us to the cost levels that other countries see.
There is only one side of the House that will provide leadership in the coming years, and it is this side.
I am delighted to second this motion and to follow the member for Hume. It is interesting that we heard today not much of a defence for the member for Wentworth. The member for Wentworth might be the current Prime Minister but he is certainly no leader. At every instance in recent months, since taking over from the member for Warringah, he has put his political interests ahead of the interests of this nation. And now what you see is a very nervous member for Warringah, a very nervous prime minister, because he has twigged to the fact that that 'empty chair' that almost rolled Tony Abbott the first time is doing the numbers again! The empty chair is on the march because the member for Wentworth is providing absolutely no leadership.
I have never seen a gloomier government than the mob opposite. You would think they had lost this election. They did only win by about 12,000 votes across the nation. It is something of a pyrrhic victory, isn't it, because we know that this is a government that is absolutely divided among itself. And we know that the people of Barton, Bass, Braddon, the new seat of Burt, Cowan, Dobell, Eden-Monaro, Herbert, Hindmarsh, Lindsay, Longman, Lyons, Macarthur, Macquarie, Paterson and Solomon all voted against the division, the dysfunction and the inequality that this government stands for. They voted for what Labor stands for—Bill Shorten's leadership, more than 250 positive policies, the unity and the discipline that we have shown on this side.
I will tell you something else, Mr Deputy Speaker: when Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull took over from the member for Warringah, we had this CEO of Australia Inc. that was going to come in and get things back on the road. What have we seen instead? We have seen the David Brent of Australian politics. We have seen a man desperate to be liked by his colleagues; so desperate to be liked that he is prepared to give in on the plebiscite, he is prepared to give in on climate change, he is prepared to give in on all the 2014 budget cuts that were so unpopular with the Australian public. Now he is prepared to give in, no doubt, on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act because, obviously, the most important thing that this parliament can do is make it easier for people to offend and humiliate fellow Australians—that is a priority worth being proud of!
We had the member for Warringah making a speech to the building industry last week—or whenever it was—warning the member for Wentworth, making it very clear that if there is any compromise on climate change or on any the other issues that the hard Right of the Liberal party hold dear, the member for Wentworth will be rolled. And there is one other quality that the member for Wentworth, the Prime Minister, shares with David Brent: he is desperate to be liked by his friends at work—or people he thinks of as friends—but he is basically incompetent. We see a man who stuffed up the republic referendum. He stuffed up the NBN: he doubled the cost, he doubled the roll-out time, and we have dropped from the 30th-fastest country for internet speeds to the 60th-fastest country for internet speeds.
He stuffed up the census: this is the worst rollout of the census—and you are responsible for this too—the worst rollout of the census in 100 years. We have a Prime Minister who says he is committed to constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians; I do not see him campaigning anywhere on this, I have to say. And instead what he wants to do is divert attention by backing the hard Right in their claim that we need to have a plebiscite on marriage equality. How can we run these two campaigns at the same time? What he wants is for the plebiscite to fail, so that he has no people management problems at Wernham-Hogg. He does not want the people management problems at Wernham-Hogg opposite here. And we have the Treasurer, who is the best tough guy sidekick since Gareth Keenan—the Treasurer, who talks about debt but has tripled the deficit. (Time expired)
Deputy Speaker, I can congratulate you on your election yesterday to the office of Deputy Speaker; I am sure you will be very good—and given that I seconded the motion, I am very confident about that.
I am going to reverse today's MPI, Mr Speaker, to make it much more relevant and much more real. I am going to change the MPI and talk about the Prime Minister's excellent leadership, the excellent leadership that he has now shown for close to a year. And I will go through some examples.
Let us start with a topic that is always very important to us in this federal parliament, and that is economics and our country's economy. The member for Hume very recently mentioned a lot of figures and a lot of facts about leadership and economic management, under both the previous Labor administration and this current administration, in both the last parliament and in this one. We are very, very clear on this side of the parliament that the way we manage this nation's economy, and how we leave the economy and where we leave it with things like deficits and net debt levels, is very important, not necessarily to us but—as we keep saying—to our children and grandchildren. We often hear from the other side the word 'sustainability'. The word sustainability comes out of their mouths a lot when they are talking about things like the environment, which is important, and about other things. Very rarely do you hear the word sustainability come out when they are talking about debt levels and the economics of this country, and that is a very important subject.
Another example is jobs: we talked a lot about jobs in the election, and it is a very important thing as well. We have good jobs growth in this country. We also announced at the election, through the Prime Minister, the jobs and investment package, which is about encouraging companies to move, especially to rural and regional areas, and also to this country. And that was a very popular and well thought-out package, and great leadership from the Prime Minister.
I think we need to look also at the character of people. The Prime Minister has said many times that we as a country, and many businesses, are facing great disruption. You do not have to go too far in any of your local electorates to run into businesspeople who are running into great disruption about how their businesses or how their industries are getting set. Now, who would I put my faith in—and indeed, who would I put my money on—to manage that? Would I put my money on an individual like our Prime Minister, who has started up his own companies and who was a successful businessman? Would I put my money or my faith in someone who has that track record, in someone who has the track record of a smart businessman and someone who has been able to manage companies from small companies to big companies? But would I have my faith in that person—a person who understands that—or would I have my faith in a person who is a union hack? I think it is a very easy decision to make. On unions, the Prime Minister again has shown great leadership with the ABCC Act, and with looking to stamp out union corruption—something that the other side do not seem to have a lot of interest in.
There are other things the Prime Minister has done: we have one of the biggest infrastructure spends that is happening in this country, with things like the Pacific Highway in my electorate, which are very important. He has shown great leadership in that. The defence white paper which we announced late last year; again, the Prime Minister led, and led very well. I cannot believe that the Labor Party talk about the NBN. The NBN designed by Senator Conroy was a debacle. Our current Prime Minister, when he was the Minister for Communications, cleaned up the NBN—and we now have more sign-ups to NBN in a month than they did in six years. I am always amazed that they bring that subject up.
But let's look at the alternative. The Leader of the Opposition talks about fear campaigns. Every member of the other side of this House should hang their head in shame because in election campaigns we should debate real things. Things like negative gearing? Yes, we should have debated that. Things like the company tax cut that we were proposing should be debated. The fact that you brought up the mediscare campaign and wanted to have a debate about a policy that did not even exist means that you should hang your heads in shame. This was a new low, a new low in Australian politics and a new low in federal campaigning that you ran on a policy that did not even exist. You should all hang your heads in shame on that.
As the Prime Minister has said—and this morning we laid on the table many things as well—this is going to be a term of delivery. We look forward to delivering a more stable economy, to more job growth and to a growing economy for the Australian public.
Here we are, the first sitting day of the re-elected Turnbull government. It should be a day of celebration over there you would think, wouldn't you, Mr Deputy Speaker? You would think members opposite should be pleased that they are back, and yet on the first and we have a Prime Minister and a Treasurer exposed in national media as being completely bereft of political and moral authority. We know they are bereft of political authority because the Prime Minister and the Treasurer could not even convince their own cabinet of an important policy matter. It is the first time it has happened since 1974. It is the first time the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of the day have gone into the cabinet and said, 'Here's something we want to do,' and the cabinet said: 'Not on your life, Prime Minister and Treasurer. We are not going to let you.' They have no political authority.
It is not unusual for a Prime Minister to grow into the job. It is a hard job. It takes time to adjust. This Prime Minister is shrinking before our eyes at question time, shrinking into the job every single day because he has no political authority within his government. And you know what? He has no moral authority either. We saw him during the election campaign run a scare campaign about negative gearing. We thought: 'This isn't going too well. Maybe it's just because he just isn't up to a scare campaign like the member for Warringah was.' The member for Warringah knew how to run a scare campaign. We will give him that! He was good at that. But it turns out there was more than that. The Prime Minister's heart was not in it because he agreed that negative gearing needed to be reformed. He knew when he said to the Australian people 'this will smash your housing prices' and 'this will wreck the economy' that they were not the arguments he was using behind closed doors in the cabinet room when he was asking his colleagues to agree with him. He was saying one thing to the Australian people and another thing to his cabinet colleagues, and that is why this Prime Minister completely lacks moral authority as well as political authority.
There is a pattern that we see very clearly. The Prime Minister believes in this House dealing with marriage equality but he cannot convince his cabinet and he misleads the Australian people about what he thinks. This is a Prime Minister who used to say that he would never lead a political party that was not as committed to real action on climate change as he is. That was the member for Wentworth. Now he leads a party that has a joke for a climate action policy, which he used to call a fig leaf, and that he claims to the Australian people that he believes in. Yet, we know that he does not. This is a Prime Minister who knows that it is in the Australia's national interest, for the first time in our modern history, to have a serious candidate for one of the most important decisions in the world: Secretary-General of the United Nations. But, no, the right wing of his cabinet will not let him do it. This is a Prime Minister who knows that an effects test is very poor policy but his cabinet and his National Party insist that he implements it. He has a right wing in his cabinet that says: 'Don't you act in the national interest, Prime Minister. You act in our political interest.' And this Prime Minister jumps to their orders. This Prime Minister says, 'That's what we are going to do.' That is why he lacks moral authority.
He comes in here and says that there is a moral challenge about debt. This is a Prime Minister who rejects our offer to fix his superannuation mess. This is a Prime Minister who cannot get his own superannuation policy, which he took to the election, through his party room, let alone his cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition extended a hand and said: 'We will help you fix the mess. We will help you avoid a retrospective policy, which is very bad policy, and we have done the policy work and developed a plan which actually raises more money for the government.' And this Prime Minister said, 'There is a moral challenge about debt, and I'm not taking your offer, because I just want to play politics.' This is a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who bring in a bill and say that we must pass it. Sight unseen, we must agree to pass it, and 'don't you dare even look at it'. The member for Rankin and I have a look at it and we find a $100 million error which the Treasurer appeared to be unaware of, and they say: 'How dare you not pass our error. How dare you not pass our mistake.' The bill has a black hole. No wonder this Treasurer is clearly being regarded as not up to the job. This is a Treasurer and a Prime Minister who are not prepared to lead. This is a Prime Minister who on the matter of housing affordability lectures the Australian people that rich parents should pay for their children's houses when all along he knew there was a better answer. All along he knew there was a better policy to deal with the crisis of housing affordability but he had no authority to implement it. I say this: the Prime Minister and the Treasurer should make way for a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who are prepared to lead the economic policy debate in this country and who led during the election campaign on issues that have been in the too-hard basket for 30 years. This Leader of the Opposition was prepared to say to the Australian people, 'This policy of negative gearing is not fair or sustainable and we will fix it.' We went to the election seeking a mandate for economic reform. This Prime Minister went to the election with an excuse and a slogan, and he should recognise that his leadership is over. (Time expired)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation. To the shadow Treasurer: your stocks have dropped massively. Why are you still on the opposition benches? Because you did not outline an economic vision for this country. You outlined a vision for higher taxes and for bigger government, and that was it. You were a failed Treasurer the first time and now you are a failed shadow Treasurer.
This government has one central goal in this term of parliament: to get our budget back under control. That is the main game in town, the main game for this economy and the main game for this government. The main game for every government around this country at a state and obviously at a federal level is to get our house in order. Everything the Labor Party does is to increase the debt and the deficit. We all know that when the Labor Party came into office in 2007 they inherited about $80 billion in assets. They squandered that very, very quickly and we ended up with a trajectory of $667 billion of debt.
We hear of black holes from the shadow Treasurer. We all know the infamous Bowen black hole of well over $18 billion between the time of the 2013 election and the budget—$18 billion! What did the shadow Treasurer do at the last election? He outlined a vision for $16 billion in higher deficits over the forward estimates—$16 billion! How is that addressing the key economic issue facing this country that government can control: reining in our own spending? There is no interest group, no constituency, that the Labor Party do not think they can buy off with more taxpayer dollars. That is the issue facing this country, and until the Labor Party face up to the facts they will continue to sit on the opposition benches.
They look very happy. The shadow Treasurer in his big, shouty voice gets up looking very triumphant. His stocks have dropped, I can tell you right now, because they are on the opposition benches because of the shadow Treasurer's failure to outline any vision. The Australian people do not trust the Labor Party with the economy, so the fact that they would raise this in the MPI today is quite extraordinary.
We have a huge agenda this week. Industrial relations reform, bringing back the ABCC, the registered organisations bill—these things are not particularly sexy but they provide productivity benefits for our economy in one of the largest sectors. In the construction industry we employ over a million Australians. Every single Australian who uses a bridge, a road, a hospital—something that is constructed through this industry—will benefit from the increased productivity that the ABCC will deliver. These are things that government can do. These are economic reforms.
What would the Labor Party do? They would go through this faux process of looking into the ABCC, but we know that John Setka and all of the others in the union movement will never let them support the ABCC. They will never let them support anything that removes the perks and lurks for the union movement. And who pays for it? The average Australian pays for it. Our economy pays for it.
Our economy is growing at above three per cent at the moment—above-trend growth. On the most important measure of our economy, GDP growth, we are growing above trend. That is something we have arrested from the point at which Labor left office, when there was below-trend growth and it was dropping. Now we are above three per cent. We are seeking to address the main challenge that faces our government and every government around this country, which is getting our own house in order. I know that for the next three years—hopefully it will be for a lot longer—the Labor Party will block us every single step of the way, because there is no dollar that they do not want to spend, there is no interest group that they will not say no to, and, as I said at the beginning, there is no constituency that they will not seek to buy off with taxpayer dollars because—guess what!—they will not be the ones held accountable. We will be the ones who have to pick up the pieces and pay off the debt.
There is a truism in Australian politics, which is this: you must elect a coalition government if you want to get the fiscal house of the federal government in order. That is what this government will do. That is the leadership that our Prime Minister is showing, and I am standing squarely behind our Prime Minister in achieving that goal.
Deputy Speaker, can I congratulate you on the role. It is good to have you there in the chair.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
I have to say, if I were a minister I would not care to be just hanging around, shouting at the opposition the whole time. Most ministers are in charge of something, but I guess the Minister for Urban Infrastructure at the table is in the same position as every other member of the government: what you actually think has nothing to do with what you end up doing. You may as well come in, shout a few barbs across the table and entertain yourself because you do not get a chance to do anything you believe in. At least he is in a better position than the poor old bloke beside him at the table, who was responsible for the census. Sometimes—
Order! The Minister for Small Business on a point of order?
The member was getting to his feet to debate this—
We have not taken points of order on yours. Just sit down. There is a protocol during MPIs.
We have heard before about governments that are driven by opinion polls. Never before have we had a government that could not run an opinion poll, and he is the one who was put in charge of it.
But it is not fair, I guess, for me to say that they do not get to do anything they believe in at all, because the Prime Minister has not been rolled on every issue. There is one issue where he has managed to prevail: the banks. The one issue where the Prime Minister has been able to make sure that the detractors within his own party do not win is when it comes to defending the banks. I love that the committee that is going to be tough and teach the banks a lesson is chaired by the member for Banks! It is meant to be an area, not a constituency that you are actually backing! It is Joseph Banks!
What could have been more demeaning than to listen to the member for Dawson—the person who had made statements quite specifically saying he would be strident in the new parliament in standing up—
Four months ago.
this was back in April—and pushing for there to be a royal commission, who gets offered the job of party whip and at that moment, all of a sudden, not only are all the objections and all fight that was in him not enough for him to cross the floor; he is personally moving an amendment to take the call for the royal commission out of the motion.
You would think someone on that side would be allowed to believe in the policies they took to their constituents. The policy we keep hearing from those opposite—we have heard it a few times during this MPI—is a claim that you have to trust their side of politics to be getting debt down, getting the deficit down. If that is the case, why have they tripled the deficit? If that is the case, why have they added $100 billion to net debt? If your belief is that those on your side of politics are the ones who are going to get debt down then the starting point is that you do not keep making debt bigger—because when you are making debt bigger, and the deficit is tripling, that means debt is not getting less.
I know these numbers are complex and, given where the Treasurer has been at today, numbers are a really tough thing. He was asked a question today about page 5 of the explanatory memorandum of the omnibus bill. This is a bill that we were meant to support without even seeing. The reason we had to support it was that there were 21 measures in it totalling $6.5 billion. Then, in the last 48 hours, we have found out that there are not 21 measures but 24 measures and that, instead of their adding up to $6.5 billion, they now add up to $6.1 billion. But by their own numbers it does not add up even to that. I will do the addition of the numbers on page 5. When you learn maths, addition is one of the early things you are normally taught, but for the Treasurer 146 plus 92 plus 58 equals 405. You can write it down, Member for Barker, while you are at it, that is good—146 plus 92 plus 58 equals 405. You would think that if there was a portfolio on the front bench they would not give to someone who had a basic problem with addition it would be the job of Treasurer. You would think that across the different candidates who might be available, a starting point for that particular job might be someone who could add up. But what we have is a Treasurer who not only cannot do the addition required by his job he also cannot carry an economic argument in the cabinet. (Time expired)
Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker Coulton, and I congratulate you on your election to your office. It is tremendous to have the opportunity to speak on this MPI, which allows for a very clear contrast between the clear, focused economic agenda of this government and the extraordinary lack of an economic agenda of those opposite. As was observed in the last election campaign, what the opposition said about an economic plan for the nation was precisely zero. There were a whole lot of things said about how to tax more, there were a range of things about how to spend more and there were a range of things about how to redistribute income, but there was no economic plan for the nation. That is a major problem, because ultimately our capacity in this place to do the things that we want to do for the nation, to help the nation to grow, ultimately hinge on the driver of the of the economy—economic growth. It is the engine that drives us forward. All of the wonderful intentions and great ideas about what people might like to do become virtually impossible to implement without the engine moving forward, and that ultimately is what government is about.
What we see opposite are stunts, sideshows and theatrics, but government is not a carnival attraction. Government is a serious business of doing the business of the people and ensuring that the economy moves forward. One of the most important ways to ensure that we have the capacity to move forward is ensuring that we do not spend more money than we take in. If we as a nation continue to spend more in the medium term than we take in we will suffer very serious long-term economic consequences. Some may wave that away and say there are some nations that have more debt than us, and that is true, but the vast majority of those nations are in a very poor overall economic position, and we must never, ever let ourselves go there. That is what the Prime Minister and this government are committed to—living within our means, tackling the deficit and focusing on the growth of the economy.
You do not grow the economy by doing what those opposite want to do, which is smash the economy with taxes. You don't say, 'Let's put more tax on the people who are investing in the economy,' and increase capital gains tax. You don't say, 'Let's go and punish people who are investing in property and contributing to so much activity in the property sector,' and get rid of negative gearing, which has existed for just 100 years or so. You don't do that if you want to drive the economy. You don't increase tax and the tax burden on the community.
If you want to get the economy moving you make sure that sectors like construction can get to work and get the job done. At the moment, as we know, the issues in the union sector are constricting the construction sector and holding back economic growth. That is a very large part of our GDP, with more than one million Australians employed in the sector. That is why this government is committed to the ABCC bill and the registered organisations bill, to get those sectors moving again and to take out the malfeasance and bad behaviour that we see in that sector. It is also why it is so important to support the start-up sector and the innovation sector. We talked a lot about this prior to the election. This government is committed to making it more attractive for people to invest in start-up companies through the changes to tax arrangements on capital gains tax and income tax for people who invest in start-ups. We actually care about the growth of the economy. Our primary lens, through which we look at problems, is how we make the economy stronger, because when you make the economy stronger all Australians benefit. Those opposite look at the economy and ask how they redistribute what happens to exist, but they do not actually look at it and say, 'How do we make it bigger, better and stronger?' What was their economic plan at the last election? They had no economic plan. Remarkably, they said, 'We will bank the superannuation savings of the government,' without telling us what their superannuation policy is. It is quite extraordinary and will be remembered for years to come. It is a very poor reflection on the shadow Treasurer, as the member for Deakin so eloquently said moments ago. This is a government with a strong economic agenda. Economic growth is central to everything we do and those opposite have absolutely no economic plan.
Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker Coulton, and can I commend you on your elevation to the chair. I am very pleased to speak on this debate about the Prime Minister's lack of leadership. One of the starkest examples of the Prime Minister's failure of leadership is of course his failure when it comes to Medicare. Just days after the election, panicked by the message that was sent to him by the electorate, the Prime Minister said, 'We have to do more to reaffirm the faith the Australian people in our commitment to health and to Medicare.' I note particularly his use of the term 'do more', not 'say more and more and more'—we already know that he gets a gold star for that—but 'do more'.
Two months after the election, what have we seen? Absolutely nothing. There has been no change in policy, no change in direction. He is all over the shop when it comes to dealing with the absolute mess they have made of health. As we saw in question time, it does not look as though that is going to end any time soon.
The Prime Minister said after the election that he has learnt his lesson on what people expect of his government when it comes to Medicare. Well if you believe that, there is a bridge over Sydney Harbour that I have got for sale. I mean, really? You saw in question time his complete inability to actually say any one of the cuts to Medicare that he is reversing.
The Prime Minister, like his health minister, wants to blame everyone else for the problems that they have created—for the fertile ground they have created when it comes to people's distrust of them when it comes to health. Far from being nimble and agile they have bound themselves to the same policies and the same tired old Liberal Party rhetoric. We saw the ridiculousness during the election campaign of the health minister saying that she did not support the freeze on the Medicare Benefits Schedule but that Treasury and Finance made her do it. Well now we have almost got the Prime Minister saying exactly the same.
This Prime Minister is all talk and no action. He knows that he has got a problem when it comes to the continuation of the freeze on Medicare but is incapable, or it would appear simply unwilling, to actually do anything about it. The problem is that many Australians seeking to access their GP or their specialist cannot afford to wait for this Prime Minister's dithering. They cannot afford more cuts in health to pay for your mistake. As is being highlighted this week with Michael Marmot's Boyer lectures, we have growing health inequality in this country and everything this government and this Prime Minister have done is making it worse. There is growing health inequality and every single one of the policies introduced by this government is making inequality in health worse.
Far from learning the lessons on Medicare, this government is committed to freezing the Medicare Benefits Schedule for six years until 2020, after the next election. That is not a freeze; as rural doctors have said, that is an ice age. It is a GP tax by stealth and it is doing exactly what the government wanted to do and have been trying to do since the 2014—put a price signal on visits to your doctor and to your specialist, leading to poorer quality and less affordable access to health care.
They want to increase the cost of prescription medicines for everyone, including concession card holders. We already know from pharmacists across the country that compliance is a major issue when it comes to medicines, and you want to make this worse. They want to cut bulk-billing incentives for pathology on 1 October, which will leave no incentive or mechanism to enable bulk-billing for vital blood tests to continue to be available; cut bulk-billing incentives for diagnostic imaging on 1 January 2017, which again will provide no mechanism to ensure that these vital scans are affordable; maintain public hospital cuts at a level that is simply not sustainable for our public hospitals; abandon funding and targets for emergency department waiting times and elective surgery; and cut the Medicare safety net—a mechanism that tries to provide some easing of the costs of health care for people who because of the nature of their illness and circumstances have higher healthcare needs. Those are the policies that you have tied yourself to—every single one of them.
The Prime Minister was unable in question time today to say which of those cuts they were reversing. Which one is it? If they have learnt their lesson when it comes to health care, they will be reversing those cuts. There is a test for this Prime Minister. Unfreeze the Medicare Benefits Schedule, properly fund our public hospitals, do not proceed with the cuts to bulk-billing incentives for pathology and diagnostic imaging, do not slash the Medicare safety net and stop pretending—you did actually want to privatise the Medicare payment system—and actually tell us how you are going to make sure that the public sector can continue to deliver it.
Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, I congratulate you, as others have, on your election to that office. I could speak here about the failure to provide leadership—and I will in terms of leadership for the opposition—and I could speak to the national interest in terms of the economic issues which beleaguer this nation but the members for Deakin and Hume have done such a good job, so I thought I might speak to a peculiar symptom of the Australian Labor Party. It is a symptom that, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition suffers from, and that is the failure to stand up to the union movement. I can give two pretty salient examples of that failure—and in my view this is the reason why you are sitting over there and not here, so listen up.
The first one is the failure to stand up to the Transport Workers Union, which delivered the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. I am grateful that the Minister for Small Business is in the chamber because he knows that that tribunal was set to send 30,000 small business operators on a trajectory to bankruptcy. I do not reckon you got too many of those votes. Where was the leadership from the Leader of the Opposition? He should have stood up to the TWU. That is a case in point.
Here is the second case. What about the CFMEU? This is John Setka et al. If the Leader of the Opposition had stood up to the thugs in the CFMEU and said, 'No, we need to reintroduce the rule of law to the Australian commercial building sector,' then I am pretty certain you would have got a little bit closer to this side of the chamber. Standing up to union bosses is difficult—I understand it; they pull all of your strings—but I would have thought it would have been a little easier to stand up to the party apparatchiks, but he could not do that either. Reference the Mediscare campaign. What if a party apparatchik had come into my office and I happened to be the Leader of the Opposition and said: 'What we are going to do is scare the bejesus out of the pensioners of Australia. We are not just going to tell a small lie; we are going to tell a really big fat one. And we are not just going to put it on billboards and corflutes and run ads; we are going to get volunteers to pick up the phone and ring pensioners in the middle of the night.' That is not leadership; that is lying to the people of Australia.
While we are speaking about this can I talk about the disgusting ads I have seen that have been run by the union movement around safety on building sites. As someone who lost a brother in a work accident, I find those ads absolutely abhorrent.
But I hope that I can set a challenge for the Leader of the Opposition which will enable him to show his inner leader, which I think he is so desperate to show. In fact, I think he thinks he won the election. Note to those that are new in the chamber: if you sit over there, you lost the election; if you sit over here, you won the election and you are in government. Here is my challenge to the Leader of the Opposition: if he wants to show the kind of leadership that he pretends he possesses—that inner quality; that Howard-esque, Keating or Hawke quality—what he should do is invite Senator Dastyari for a cup of tea this afternoon, and what he needs to say to Senator Dastyari is: 'Senator, I'm sorry, but your actions over this issue mean that you are simply unfit to be the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate.' Now, that is a test for the Leader of the Opposition: you talk a good game on leadership; this is an opportunity for you to show that you possess that inner quality. He has all of today. It is not a long walk from the Senate to the Leader of the Opposition's suite. Invite Senator Dastyari into the room, sit down, pour him an Earl Grey, maybe offer him a biscuit and say, 'Mate, I have to do this because leadership qualities demand that I do it.' If the Leader of the Opposition does not do that, quite frankly he is all sausage and no sizzle. It is easy to talk a good game on leadership. Let's see him deliver it. Sadly, I do not think he will.
The time for the discussion has now concluded.
Before I call the honourable member for Barton, I remind the House that this is the member's first speech. I therefore ask the House to extend the usual courtesies to her.
It was in this chamber I experienced one of the most remarkable moments of my life. I was in that gallery just up there. It feels like it was just yesterday. But I will tell you that story of truth-telling and generosity in a moment.
Ballumb Ambul Ngunawhal Ngambri yindamarra. Ngadu bang marang Ngadhu Ngu-nha winhanga nha nulabang nguwandang. Ngadhu biyap yuganha. Birrang a ngawaal. Ngadhu, yand yaman gid yal. Yindyamarra. Mandaang. Ngarind-ja.
I have just said, in the language of Wiradjuri, my people: 'I pay respect to the ancient Ngunawhal and Ngambri. I say this: good day. I am giving my first speech and I am deeply moved. I have journeyed to another place—a powerful place. I am one person. I wish in this House to honour, to be respectful, to be gentle and to be polite. I am thankful, happy. I could weep.' However, I say to my elders and to you, Mr Speaker, that that last bit may not always apply in question time!
I mention respectfully the traditional owners of the seat of Barton—three clans of the Eora, the Bidjigal, the Gweagal and the Badigal, custodians of the land from the Cooks River to the shores of Brighton-Le-Sands and out to the Georges River. It is strong country. And to the traditional owners of all the lands from which members of this chamber and the other place come: these lands are, always were and always will be Aboriginal land—sovereignty never ceded.
So, what was that remarkable moment? Many of you were here. It was the first sitting of the new Labor government, on 13 February 2008. Kevin Rudd was the new Prime Minister, Jenny Macklin the minister for Indigenous affairs, and Brendan Nelson the opposition leader.
Our nation had been holding its breath for a long time, waiting for three words: 'We are sorry.' There was the stubborn refusal of the previous Prime Minister to apologise for policies which had ripped many thousands of Aboriginal children from their family, culture and country—the devastating effects still felt today. But around the perimeter of this chamber sat some of those children, now old people, still wearing the scars of forced removal on their faces. They were joined by all surviving prime ministers bar one.
Finally, as the words rang out across this chamber, across this land and around the world, 'For this we are sorry,' the country cried and began to breathe again.
As the speeches concluded, two women stood and handed the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and minister an empty coolamon—and I beg the indulgence of the House in carrying a coolamon in here today. It was the most gracious and generous thing I had ever seen. It was profound, a gesture that made us all better people. Friends, a coolamon is what we carried our babies in, which is what made it such an amazing, generous thing to do.
I carry this empty coolamon into this place today as a reminder of that moment, of the power we exercise in this building today, and that it must be for the good of all. It must be gracious. But it has not always been so. But it can be. That day the truth was told in this place, and the power of generosity was writ large. So, Mr Speaker, the significance of coming down from that gallery up there to the floor of this chamber is not lost on me.
Members, in this term of parliament all I want is to be able to stand in this place knowing that the document on which it was founded finally tells the truth. Recognition of the First People in our nation's constitution is the next step on the path we are walking towards a country that can look itself in the eye knowing that we have come of age. Fundamentally, reconciliation is about three things: it is about reciprocity; it is about restitution; and it is about truth telling. One of the bravest statements I ever heard was in the opening ceremony of the 1997 Reconciliation Convention in Melbourne. The 10-point plan in the winding back of the native title debate was raging, and the chair of the council at that time is now Senator Patrick Dodson. I was on the executive committee—I am not sure if Patrick liked it or did not—but I think I did okay and I think he did like it. He was an amazing chair. But Senator Dodson said at the opening of that convention, in the presence of the world media, 'There can never be reconciliation without social justice.'
Nor is the significance of a first speech lost on me. It is defining; it sets out what has made you, what you believe in and what you stand for. It talks about the seat and the people whose hopes, hurts, aspirations and loves you carry into this place. It talks of the deep affection you have for those people. Because of the significance, I carry into this chamber this cloak. This cloak was made by my Wiradjuri sister, Lynette Riley, who will sing us into this place now.
Ms Riley then sang in the Wiradjuri language
Thank you, Lynette.
This cloak tells my story. It charts my life. On it is my clan totem, the goanna, and my personal totem, the white cockatoo—a messenger bird and very noisy.
Let me share with you a little of what has made me. In 2010 I returned to the little town I grew up in. It is called Whitton—I am a freshwater kid from the Riverina. I learnt to swim in irrigation channels, and we shared that water with yabbies, freshwater mussels, leeches, red bellied blacks and I suspect considerable amounts of chemicals, which explains the constant boils and hives I had as a child.
It was the 150th anniversary of the Whitton public school; I was a cabinet minister at the time and I thought I looked pretty flash. A man a little older than me—I guess he would have been one of the big kids when I was at school—said to me, 'You know, Linda, the day you were born was one of the darkest days this town has ever seen.' I was so shocked I could not respond. You see, Mr Speaker, despite being more than 50 years on, I was born at a time when a white woman having an Aboriginal baby was shocking—and doubly so if that woman was not married. I was born at a time when the Australian government knew how many sheep there were but not how many Aboriginal people. I was 10 years old before the '67 referendum fixed that.
The first decade of my life was spent as a noncitizen. I was raised by two very brave people who no doubt were made to pay for the bravery and generosity they displayed—my great aunt Letitia Laing, Nina, and her brother Billy. They were of Scottish heritage and in the latter part of their life. I have wondered often had they not stepped up to raise me where my life would be now.
I loved them very much and experienced their passing and grief early in life. I was taken in after their death by Coral Smith and her family. Coral's daughter Barbara is my oldest friend on earth, 51 years! I spoke to her on the weekend. Friendships over one's whole life are rare things, indeed.
I didn't meet my Wiradjuri father until I was in 28—his first words to me were, 'I hope I don't disappoint you.' His name was Nonni Ingram, Lawrence Ingram, of the great Wiradjuri Ingram clan. Nonni and his wonderful wife Launa had 10 children. Ten brothers and sisters I didn't know existed! We grew up 40 minutes apart. The power of racism and exclusion were not things you could see, but you certainly felt them.
I had two sets of brothers and sisters—my mother married a man, a wonderful man, called Fred Stracke. They had four children, two brothers gone now, but my sister Kim is here today. I'm so thrilled you are here, Kim; it means a lot. Fred spent his life serving in the Air Force and served in World War II.
I would ask all of those listening this afternoon to imagine what it was like for a 13-year-old Aboriginal girl in a school classroom, being taught that her ancestors were the closest thing to stone age man on earth and struggling with your identity.
Being in this chamber today feels a long way from that time. And from the man in the schoolyard at the anniversary—well, here's to you mate.
In many ways these experiences have been the catalyst for my subsequent life as an advocate for education and social justice. The Aboriginal part of my story is important. It is the core of who I am, but I will not be stereotyped and I will not be pigeonholed.
Let me tell you a little of the Wiradjuri story. In Wiradjuri lore Biami is the creation spirit. He is the source of both our physical and moral landscape. The story of invasion and conquest for the Wiradjuri is a brutal one. The deadly art of poisoning waterholes and flour began in Wiradjuri country. Massacre sites are dotted all over my lands. The scars are evident for all of us to see. In 1823 martial law was declared in Bathurst after Windradyne and his warriors waged a fierce war of resistance. Four months later over 1,00 Wiradjuri were dead by sanctioned murder. In 1842, during the second Wiradjuri wars, one horror saw all but one young boy slaughtered when settlers opened fire on a group taking shelter on an island amongst the reeds in the creek of the Murrumbidgee River. That creek is now known as Poisoned Waterhole Creek, and their sheltering place is called Murdering Island. On Saturday I drove over that bridge and that creek. I stopped the car, I got out and my blood ran cold. You see, Mr Speaker, I am of the Murrumbidya Wiradjuri.
In Barton, from the beach in Brighton-Le-Sands you can stand and look towards Botany Bay where the First Fleet in 1788 first entered these shores. Settlement or invasion is a matter of perspective—of whether you were on the shore or on the boats in the middle of the bay. I spoke earlier of truth-telling. Perhaps another great act of honesty and healing would be a permanent remembering of those frontier wars, just down the road at our national war memorial.
The chamber I have come from in New South Wales proudly hangs the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. Symbolism is important. I know that symmetry is important in this place, but perhaps we could think that once we get constitutional recognition we could add another two flags to this chamber, coloured red, gold and black, and white, green and blue—the colours and the flags of the two first peoples of this nation.
I will say that I intend to bring the fighting Wiradjuri spirit into this place. This mob behind me knows what that is about. I will bring that spirit into this place for the people of Barton, for the first peoples and for those great Labor values of social justice and equality for all people.
I enter this place as a representative of the people of Barton, a community I have been proud to live in for almost 20 years. If there is a god of demography, it is one of his greatest ironies that the seat named after the architect of the White Australia policy has become one of the most multicultural in the country! Over half of the people in Barton were born overseas. Almost 10 per cent were born in China. We have a well-establish post-World War II Greek and European community, a thriving Arabic-speaking community, a rapidly-growing Nepalese community, a Macedonian community, an Indian community—you name it. We have people from every corner of the globe. Barton is a kaleidoscope of languages, ethnicities and cultures. I am not sure what Sir Edmund would think of the ethnic wonderland being represented in this place today by, of all people, me—and a Koori woman to boot!
From Campsie to Kyeemagh and from Beverley Hills to Brighton, this electorate could not be a more shining example of what our modern Australia looks like. For the benefit of those in this House and in the other place who doubt it, I want to place here on record that we are a stronger community because of this diversity. We are better for our differences and we are richer for all the broader cultural experience that it affords us. It is the underpinning of small business in the Barton electorate by the people I refer to.
We all have fantastic stories from election day, but let me share one with the House. It is Hurstville Public School at 5.45. It is dark and it is cold. The booth is being packed up and a car pulls up. There is a very old woman in that car. She needs help to walk. It is a long way across that cold, dark playground. Her daughter says, 'Mum, don't worry, we can just pay the fine.' This old woman says, 'No, I'm voting. This is history.' Friends, it is history indeed. That, my friends, is Barton, and we made history together.
Barton is the endless generosity of Khalil and his family at Ibrahim's Pastry in Rockdale and the tireless advocacy of James Zhou, Lily and little Chloe for their Chinese Australian community. It is the enthusiasm of Harry Danalis and Nia Kateris for their Greek Orthodox community across the region and the passion of families like Joe Awada and our proud Arabic community. Those are just some of the stories; there are so many more.
In fact, for my money there is only one division that counts for anything in our electorate. It is the one between the Canterbury Bulldogs and the St George Dragons. My office and I are already preparing a public response should both teams play in the grand final next year. I have already told my grim-faced media advisor that I will remain a Doggies fan, but a true friend of the Red Vs. Truly though, both teams have a long and proud history in Barton. And like all good local sporting clubs, of which there are many, they are not just something to barrack behind. There are teams like Denis Loether's City Suns in Rockdale and Nick's Cooks River Titans. These are the clubs that glue a community together.
And Barton, after a brief flirt with the Liberals, is firmly back in the Labor fold by 8.3 per cent because people in our community know that the invisible hand of the market cares little for the needs of the most disadvantaged. They recognise that a government's job is to ensure services are provided, whether they are education, health care or social assistance. Government cannot simply outsource its responsibility. Rhetoric about the evils of government intervention mean nothing to a mother in Campsie escaping domestic violence and searching for a bed that night. As a school teacher, as a member of the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales, as a director-general, as a representative in the United Nations of the first peoples, as a local member, as a minister responsible for children at risk, as a minister responsible for women, I have seen why government intervention is necessary. We cannot sit on our hands in places like these hoping that it will be so.
Government has a role to serve and to lead. Throughout my political career, and before, I have been consistent. Much work of government is important but nothing more so than education. Education is not a silver bullet but it is the closest thing we have for dealing with our social ills. But our parliament must commit to more specific goals, too, with things like lifting the birth weight of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island children. An increase of 191 grams could change lives. Reducing the rate of juvenile incarceration must be a priority, because we cannot be satisfied that this is a fair country while so many of our young people, many of them Aboriginal, are locked up. The royal commission has been announced, but I suspect it will be difficult to restrict it to the Northern Territory. I think we are already seeing that. There is no justification for the incarceration of children as young as 10, not when we know that getting kids to school and intervening early work so much more effectively and they are better economics.
The challenge of domestic violence in our communities is a national crisis. Strong rhetoric must be matched with strong action and leadership. We should take seriously our custodianship of land, and I know that we do. We cannot leave this task somehow to the never-never with our children. Landcare groups in Barton like the Mudcrabs and the Cooks River Valley Association know this all too well.
On issues of political debate and policy the message from those in our electorate, and outside it, has been clear. People have decried what they see as a lack of sincerity and a lack of good faith in our political conversation. They see it when some members of this parliament rally behind their right to hate speech but say nothing of the effect this will have on our most marginalised communities. Too often these calls to amend the Racial Discrimination Act come from those for whom this kind of discrimination it totally alien. I can tell them that it is hurtful. To me and to many people here today in the galleries in this chamber it is not alien. People do not ask for much from us. They want to be heard and they want to be treated with respect and with empathy. These are Labor values, and ones I will be proud to carry into this place.
So, Mr Speaker, why Labor? Well, my story speaks for itself. I was raised by a boundary rider, a drover and a field hand, shaped by a combination of love and adversity, politically blooded in the Aboriginal rights movement, and embraced by the strength of Labor and the labour movement. There was never a question of being anything else!
Now to some final reflections and thankyous. I have been in public life for some time, but I have to admit that with the frenetic pace of a local campaign I did not contemplate the response that the election of the first Aboriginal woman to the House of Representatives would get. I have been overwhelmed. I have received countless letters, emails and calls, all heartfelt and generous, some of which contained very flattering words about me as a role model. If this is true, it is possible thanks only to the role models who guided me and allowed me to come into this place, resting on their shoulders. In truth, I come to this place not only through my own labour. I have travelled paths blazed by those before me, resting on the shoulders of so many around me.
So to the impossible task of recognising those shoulders I have leaned on and to thank those who have come on this journey with me. In my valedictory speech I named some very close personal friends. Many of them are in the gallery today. To those trusted friends—you know who you are—many of you have travelled from interstate to be here, including Charmaine and Rhonda. You have stuck by me and held me up through the best and the worst of times. Each of you has been a gift and I hope my love for you in return has been the same. I am touched by a number of my former colleagues from the New South Wales parliament who have joined me here this afternoon and others who have sent their good wishes, including our local representatives Chris Minns, his wife Anna, Steve Kamper and his wife Magda, as well as Sophie Cotsis and her family, whom I see in the gallery today—they are the best little young campaigners you have ever seen—and, of course, Shaoquette Moselmane and the people Shaoquette works with so closely in the Arabic community. There are other state MPs whose support has been invaluable. I see Meredith Burgmann in the gallery—a true set of shoulders I have leaned on—and Guy Zangari, Tania Mihailuk, Lynda Voltz, Ernest Wong, Jihad Dib, Anna Watson and Jo Haylen, whom I think is here today, as well. I am sorry if I missed somebody—you can throw something at me later! I have tried to do my best but I cannot mention everyone. But if you have not been mentioned as a former colleague, you know what you mean to me.
I note, of course, Greg Warren, the member for Campbelltown, is here in the gallery with us this afternoon. Thank you for coming, Greg, and for representing Luke Foley. There are the fantastic people from local government in our area, like Bill Saravinovski, Nick Katris, Andrew Tsounis, Joe Awada, Dominic Sin and Tarek Ibrahim. To the local Aboriginal community and leaders from many different organisations from Canberra and from further afield, whom I can see in the gallery, thank you so much for rallying and being here today, led, of course, by the queen, Anne Martin. To the state party leaders and premiers I have had the pleasure of serving with—Bob Carr, Morris Iemma, my good friend Nathan Rees, Kristina Keneally, who I see around the place, John Robertson and our future Premier, Luke Foley—I say thank you.
The support and encouragement from my federal colleagues was remarkable throughout the campaign. To our leader, Bill Shorten, and to Tanya Plibersek: it has been difficult to put into words the confidence and inspiration you provided in the campaign. The campaign you ran with everyone else was about people, and that is why it was so successful. To Tony Burke, my neighbour, Jenny Macklin, my old friend, Jenny McAllister, for braving the Hurstville prepoll—and, trust me, that is braving a prepoll—and to the many people who called, like Stephen Jones and so many others in the federal team: thank you so much for welcoming me and making me feel part of who you are. I make a very special mention of Anthony Albanese and Carmel Tebbutt, whose belief in me goes back a long time—political mentors and close friends, both.
Throughout the campaign there was support and lots of cheering from the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party, by way of the unstoppable Kaila Murnain, Rose Jackson, John Graham and Pat Garcia, who are here today, and from the union movement, by way of Mel Gatfield, Mark Boyd and Erin Watt at United Voice, as well as Michael Tull and Sarah Hunt from the CPSU. My campaign team was led by a young man I now call a friend, Ed McDougal. People put their lives on hold, as everyone did in all of our campaigns—people like Leon Pun; Di Ford, Cheryl Han, Rheuben Freelander, Louay Moustafa, Kalista Kaval, Mark Buttigieg and his wonderful wife, Kirsten Andrews, Ross Bennett and the ever present Maria Pasten, Mitch Wilson, Irene Macbeth and the others.
To the great members of the Australian Labor Party: your devotion to our cause, to social justice and to equity continues to energise me. To the branch members of Barton: what an amazing group of people you are—people like Daryl and David, the Barton campaign's own 'odd couple'. Irene, Di, Luna, Jannice, Binna, Chris, Lewis, David, Sue, Ron, Alice, Esta, David, Robin, George, and Fran Rees—there are too many on the list to mention. There are people like Robin, Ron, Lewis, Kallista, Alice and many local leaders of organisations.
In conclusion, to the incredible Young Labor team—Lewis, Chris, Shannon, Oliver, Luke, James, Zac, Isabella, Ella and 300 additional people who worked on the campaign: thank you. To the supporters in our community like Peter and Elizabeth Antonopoulos and Bill Mougios, I thank you. The fact is that I cannot name everyone. But to all of you: your help, the early mornings—and let there never be another winter campaign—and your hard work were appreciated.
To my children, Binni and Willuari: my pride and love for you is more than all the stars in the sky. To my partner in life, the late Rick Farley: I do not know, Rick, what you think about me sitting in this place, but I do know that our country is a poorer place for having lost you.
To the people of Barton: you have put your faith in me, and I will not let you down. When I entered state politics all those years ago I made two promises to those who had elected me—that I would always work hard and that I would always do my best. Today, in this chamber, I make those same promises again to the people of Barton, to my party, to my colleagues in this place and to the people of Australia.
I spoke earlier of what it was like to be a young Aboriginal girl in the 1960s, sitting in a classroom and being told that my capacity was limited by my race and that my potential was capped by expectation. Thanks to voters in Barton I hope that there are young people who sit in classrooms—like Chloe Noak from my home town of Leeton, who is here today—whose imaginations are not so limited. If I can stand in this place, so can they. Never let anyone tell you that you are limited by anything.
In 1927 a Wiradjuri man named Jimmy Clements, or Nangar, and his friend John Noble walked for a week over the mountains to Canberra from Brungle Mission—that mission is where my father comes from. They had decided that they wanted to attend the opening of the provisional parliament. When the local police saw their attire they were asked to move on, but the crowd in front of Old Parliament House would not hear of it. They stood up for Nangar and John, and eventually they stayed.
I would like to think of the electorate today as a bit like that crowd. Thanks to them, there are more Aboriginal voices in this place than ever before: Bonner, Ridgeway, Wyatt, Lindgren, Lambie, Dodson, McCarthy—and, thanks to the good people of Barton, Burney.
Just before I call the honourable member for Fisher, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech, and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. I call the member for Fisher.
Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you on your recent election to the high office which you hold.
I would like to commence by acknowledging and paying my respects to our first Australians, and their elders, past and present, on whose land we meet here today, just as I acknowledge our first Australians in my home on the Sunshine Coast. The lot of our Indigenous peoples has been racked with poverty, ill-health and lack of opportunity since European settlement. I would like to acknowledge my predecessor Mal Brough for the hard work he has performed in this place for our Indigenous peoples. But of course our work is far from done in achieving some semblance of equality. We can and we must do much better.
With humility and respect, I thank the people of Fisher for giving me this privilege to represent them in this great place, a place that is the cornerstone of one of the oldest democratic systems in the modern world. I commit myself and my hardworking small team to working tirelessly for the people of Fisher: the young and old, the black and white, the employed, the small-business person, the pensioner, the self-funded retiree, the unemployed and the under-employed. I hope and pray that, with the forbearance of the people of Fisher and the wisdom and discernment only afforded to me by my Lord Jesus Christ, I may fulfil the role as their federal member with integrity, honour and respect.
It is testament to our Australian egalitarian way of life that a once-carpenter and the son of a motor mechanic and fabric importer can come to serve the community in this place. In Australia, there are no class structures; there are no hereditary entitlements to sit in this place; there are business people, farmers, bankers, tradesmen, unionists and labourers, among many others, who are privileged to take their seats in this chamber. That is a privilege I hope I will never take for granted during the time that the people of Fisher trust me to represent them.
The importance of the family unit is paramount in our community. The concept of the family unit is one which continues to evolve. Whether one lives in what is known as a traditional family unit or something else, we all came from a family of some description. My extended family, all of whom are here today, formed the bedrock of my belief system.
I grew up in Melbourne, the son of Ian and Fay Wallace, the youngest of four children. My siblings, Mark, Lyn and Ian, together with my parents, formed a close-knit family unit, growing up between the fifties and the eighties with strong Catholic values. We learned from a very young age the importance of the love of our grandparents, Jerry and Kath Wallace, on whose farm at Red Hill we spent our weekends; and Norm and Ethel Williams, with whom we had such a loving and close relationship. Through our parents, our grandparents taught us many things, such as the importance of hard work and self-reliance; self-sacrifice in defence of our nation; a healthy suspicion of banks, insurance companies and anyone from the government purporting to offer help.
This nation owes a debt of gratitude to the generations of Australians who came before us. To those Australians of my parents' vintage and those of my grandparents' and older, I say thank you. Thank you for your service to our country in times of war. Thank you for your self-sacrifice in times of severe depression. Thank you for your grit and determination in times of adversity—that never-say-die, that 'you wouldn't be dead for quids' approach to life has forged the Aussie spirit in ways that sometimes in our modern world appear to have gone the way of the box brownie camera.
I am also greatly blessed to have the unceasing love and support of my wife, Leonie, and our four daughters: Emma, Caroline, Rebecca and Sarah, all of whom have made the journey to Canberra today from far and wide. Over the past 27 years of marriage, as a family we have stuck together, through thick and thin, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health.
It is rare these days that I get the opportunity to have my girls as a captive audience, so I will seize this opportunity to remind them of their forebears' courage, determination and selflessness. In fact, we all need reminding from time to time that the freedoms we enjoy today were hard-fought, forged not just on battlefields around the world over the past 115 years, but waged at ballot boxes and argued in courts around this great nation.
The greatest enemy of this nation today is not a sovereign state or a political ideology. Our greatest enemy is our own apathy. I fear that our positive yet relaxed she'll-be-right-mate approach has descended into an apathetic approach of, 'Who the hell cares! It's not my problem.' There is perhaps no greater example of this than our attitude to the nation's finances. As our great nation travels further and further down the road to financial ruin, we in this place all owe it to our children and our children's children to repair the nation's economy.
Whilst we will all have differing views on how to rectify the economy, no one person and no one party has a restrictive licence on how best to achieve that rectification. In times of war, this country's political representatives have proven that we can set aside our partisan political views and work for the betterment of our nation. In this 45th Commonwealth Parliament, we in this place must work together to ensure our future prosperity for our kids and our communities. Just as any family or business, from time to time, must pull in their belts, as a nation we must now do likewise, and we in this place must lead by example.
The privilege that has been bestowed upon me by the people of Fisher would not have been possible but for the support of the Liberal National Party and its members in Fisher. Upon winning preselection on 17 April, my team of tireless volunteers again swung into action. They swung into campaign mode only three weeks before the general election was called. It was a frantic time, but one that was very ably led by the professionalism and experience of my campaign manager, Elizabeth Worthington, who I should like to point out was bestowed with an honorary life membership of the LNP just last weekend. Thank you to all those who supported the campaign, many of whom have come down to Canberra today; others are watching this in my electorate office and in their homes back in Fisher. Our long days and sleepless nights were rewarded by the people of Fisher, and it is now up to me and my team to demonstrate that that faith was well founded.
I would like to thank the LNP candidates in the preselection process for their dignity and their professionalism. The people of Fisher, both within and outside of the LNP, have demonstrated to the rest of the country that preselection and general election campaigns can be fought as a battle of ideas and policies, not an outright affront on the person espousing them. To put it in a football context for all those concerned in the election for Fisher: all candidates played the ball not the person. That seemed to resonate with our community.
It would be remiss of me if I did not make mention of my parliamentary colleagues who assisted me in the campaign: the Prime Minister; the foreign minister; the Attorney-General; the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science; the Minister for Regional Development and then Minister for Rural Health; the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport; the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia; the then minister for tourism; the then Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science; and Senators Macdonald, O'Sullivan and Lindgren. I thank each of the honourable members and senators for their contributions.
This long list of senior government ministers, senators and members demonstrates just how greatly valued the seat of Fisher is to the coalition. I would like to acknowledge the members for Fairfax and Wide Bay and the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Senator McGrath. We worked together as a team during the campaign. We presented a united front to the people of the Sunshine Coast, who see this period as a time for regeneration and growth. We ought to ensure that with all decisions we make as a small group representing the needs of the Sunshine Coast that we always put the needs of our constituents ahead of our own. With everything we do, we should first ask ourselves this simple question: will the outcome of this decision lead to a stronger economy and the creation of jobs for people living on the Sunshine Coast? Without a strong economy, without meaningful employment, our standard of living will axiomatically deteriorate.
I would also like to acknowledge my state parliamentary LNP colleagues Andrew Powell, Mark McArdle, Jarrod Bleijie, Fiona Simpson and Steve Dickson, all of whom assisted me during the campaign. I am very excited to be working alongside them, together with our Sunshine Coast councillors.
The seat of Fisher is situated to the south of the magnificent Sunshine Coast. At its southern boundary lies the township of Beerburrum. It extends to my home town of Alexandra Headlands in the north and out west as far as Cambroon. By city standards, it is a large electorate, taking in some 1,170 square kilometres. By country standards, when compared to the electorate of my friend the member for Maranoa, it is but the size of a postage stamp!
When Leoni and I moved to the seat of Fisher 23 years ago with our then only daughter, Emma, we were moved by its natural beauty of clear, pristine waterways, its famous surf beaches, its beautiful bush and the magnificent Glass House Mountains. The Sunshine Coast has so much to offer the young and old alike. That is why it is Australia's 10th-largest city. With that population, however, comes a responsibility to ensure that our environment is maintained and protected for future generations.
Fisher's greatest asset is not, however, its landmarks, its surfing beaches or its picturesque towns up on the Blackall Range. Rather, it is the people who call it home. It is the volunteer lifesavers at the Alex surf club. It is the volunteers who serve meals on wheels out of the CCSA hall in Caloundra. It is the volunteers in the Neighbourhood Watch program in Kawana Waters and the women of the CWA in Maleny. It is the volunteers at the Glasshouse Country RSL Sub-branch, the swim clubs, the Little Athletics, the footy clubs and the bowls clubs throughout the entire electorate. Without these volunteers and many more like them, our community would be a cold, self-infatuated collection of individuals. I am proud to stand here as a member of the government that supports volunteers.
The Sunshine Coast is the small business capital of the nation. The entrepreneurial spirit of those who reside in Fisher is indefatigable. Without any single large form of industry on the Sunshine Coast, the people of Fisher have learned that there is no-one better to plan for their prosperity than themselves. Take, for example, Steve and Rhonda Budden from Australian Off Road. They started their business 16 years ago in Maleny in their carport, and today they employ over 80 locals constructing top-quality off-road caravans in Caloundra. They understand the importance of manufacturing to our local economy.
Fisher is growing and maturing as a region. Take, for example, the University of the Sunshine Coast, which plans to have 20,000 students enrolled by 2020. The University of the Sunshine Coast is leading the way amongst smaller regional universities successfully competing against their larger city counterparts. In addition, the single largest project to be undertaken in the seat of Fisher is the construction of the University of the Sunshine Coast public hospital, a greenfield site, at a cost of almost $2 billion. This tertiary public hospital, when it opens in April of 2017, will ultimately employ some 6,000 staff, one of whom will be my daughter Caroline, who is a graduating nurse. The Sunshine Coast is set to become the health hub of South-East Queensland, leading to many more thousands of health related jobs in the electorate.
This is the time for Fisher and the broader Sunshine Coast to flourish and grow to their full potential. With that growth, however, comes challenges. We are seeing unprecedented demand for residential and commercial land to be developed, with projects like the $7 billion Aura greenfield site, which will ultimately see a city the size of Gladstone housing 50,000 people just south of Caloundra. Palmview is another housing development to the north of the electorate. It will be home to an additional 17,000 people.
However, parts of the seat of Fisher are already buckling under their own weight. Its road networks are struggling, and this is impacting on the quality of life of all those who have to commute to work, particularly those who have to take the 100-kilometre journey to Brisbane, a journey that can be a five-hour return trip. On the Sunshine Coast, the Bruce Highway has, not so affectionately, been called the country's largest car park. The people of Fisher, and of the Sunshine Coast more broadly, are rightly demanding better road and rail infrastructure.
If I can achieve one thing in this place, my No. 1 priority for the people of Fisher will be better road and rail infrastructure, whatever form that may take. I applaud the Prime Minister for his stance on the funding of public rail projects and for his desire to see the 30-minute city come to fruition. But that same principle must apply also to the regions, not just to those living in Melbourne and Sydney. The internal road networks in Fisher, particularly around Caloundra and Kawana, are, sadly, not faring much better than our main arterial roads. Traffic congestion is leading to low productivity rates and less time spent with family.
There are many other projects that I will seek to undertake during my first term as the federal member for Fisher. As a one-time subcontract carpenter then builder then construction barrister with 30 years experience in the building industry, I can inform the House that the health of our construction industry is dire. I applaud the Prime Minister for his tenacity in reintroducing the bill to reintroduce the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The building and construction industry is racked with corruption and self-interest. It is an industry that represents eight per cent of our GDP and that employs one in 10 Australians. We must clean up this industry for the sake of our country and the country's economy. Australians should understand that every tax dollar that is overspent on government projects is a dollar that is not spent on more roads, hospitals and police stations.
I am also passionate about the protection of subcontractors' security of payment. With eight separate forms of security-of-payment regime in this country, it is time that we moved toward the harmonisation of our laws which seek to protect the subcontractors in Fisher and throughout the nation.
Mental health remains a significant problem for many of our people, both young and old alike. Our defence veterans of all ages increasingly are suffering from PTSD and depression. Our young people are self-harming and dying at their own hands in ever-increasing numbers. I want to work with organisations like the Thompson Institute based in Kawana to help research the causes of these awful afflictions and the treatments for those suffering from them. It is reported that mental health is costing our national economy $60 billion per year. That represents four per cent of our GDP. My family, like many others, has been impacted by mental health issues, and we must, as a community, continue to remove the stigma associated with those suffering from them, just as we must research ways of preventing them in the first instance.
Being the father of a child with disabilities, I welcome the introduction of the NDIS on the Sunshine Coast—unfortunately, even if we have to wait another 3½ years before it is finally rolled out. In raising Sarah, Leonie and I and the girls have learned the old adage that it really does take a village to raise a child. We are indebted to all our friends and the broader community who have helped our family. Now that Sarah is doing so well, I see that my tenure in this place, no matter how short or how long that may be, is a form of giving back to our adopted home that has given us so much.
I will conclude with a prayer:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference.
In question time today, I provided an answer in relation to an estimated savings in the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016. My answer was based on the information contained in the explanatory memorandum to this bill, as prepared by the Treasury. I now table a revision to the explanatory memorandum for the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016, as prepared by Treasury. I note that the savings from this bill are now set out as in the revised memorandum.
My name is Luke John Anthony Gosling and mine is the great privilege of representing the people of Solomon, the northern capital of Australia. In Darwin and Palmerston we have people from over 100 countries that have been welcomed by the Larrakia Aboriginal traditional owners to make the Top End of Australia their home, including me and my family.
I stand here today a very proud Territorian and Australian with a progressive view of our place in the world and our responsibilities as global citizens. I am here because of the path that lies behind me, so I will touch on some of that before moving to the path that lies before me.
I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land that we meet on today, the Ngunawal people, and acknowledge their elders past, present and emerging. I thank them for their warm welcome yesterday at the opening of this parliament. I live on Larrakia country, but I was born in Wiradjuri country, the first born son of John and Christine Gosling. Dad is here today—a legend! From a western suburbs working family, the son of a World War II veteran, dad was just 20 when he was conscripted to fight in Vietnam. Luckily for me, not before he met a beautiful girl from Abbotsford, who lived not far from Victoria Park. I know mum is watching today from Tassie where she is visiting with my sisters Lee and Elisabeth—mum, I love you so much. You are the reason I exist and also the reason that I am Collingwood. Let me be clear, everything I have been able to do in my life is because of the unconditional love and the values imparted by those two extraordinary people: my mum and dad.
I am a grandson to Dick and Bertha Gosling, and Percy and Cath Wellard on my mum's side—all gone to God now but with us still. I am a brother to Elisabeth, Thomas, Samuel, Xavier, Christian, Lee-Kathryn and Daniel. We were all brought up to love each other, to love our community, to love our country and to cherish life on this earth. I am the father of Frank and Sally and husband to my amazing best friend and life partner, Kathryn.
Kate and I met in Timor-Leste on Anzac Day 2008 playing two-up with the troops. I was living in Darwin and had taken a job as an adviser to President Jose Ramos-Horta. Kate was visiting the troops with her boss at that time, who is in fact now the father of this House, the member for Lingiari, the Hon. Warren Snowden, so thank you, Wazza!
I went to school in your electorate, Mr Speaker, before our family moved to the city. I joined the Army straight from school. I spent my first four years here in Canberra, graduating from the Australian Defence Force Academy and the Royal Military College Duntroon before serving around Australia and overseas with the infantry, commandos and in training roles and then finally with the Territory's own NORFORCE.
I travelled and worked around the world before settling in Darwin. I have sailed the Timor Sea to Timor-Leste and witnessed the birthing of that new country. I have worked with Pashtun elders in Afghanistan as we ran an election process together, even whilst being actively targeted by the Taliban. I have worked with Yolngu country men and women on their country in north-east Arnhem Land. I have made the most of tier 2 diplomacy opportunities that have come up for me in Asia that helped me develop a clearer view of our place in the nation, our region and the world.
But living the dream in Darwin is where I wanted to be. Of course, I had fallen in love with the Territory and the Top End well before that. It was in the heady days of 1986 when, as a 14-year-old, mum and dad pulled us all out of school to see our magnificent country. Off we headed, the 10 of us, in a HiAce van towing a trailer with all our camping gear, and every night we camped. We headed for Adelaide and through Coober Pedy. We crossed the border into the Territory, arriving at Uluru near dusk. The very first thing that we saw was a dingo coming out of a tent with a full bag of groceries in its mouth. We piled out of the bus and tried to track the dingo but, of course, it had disappeared into the sand dunes.
Next it was Kata Tjuta, which left an enormous impression on my 14-year-old self. It was the space, the light from the colours and the grandeur. I actually said to myself at that time, 'If I die tomorrow at least I've seen this.' We went on to the amazing parks and waterfalls further north up the track and then into Darwin, where the Royal Darwin Show was underway. I love our show so much. I know it is daggy, but I do. The seed was sown on that trip, and not just for me but for my sister, who, with her husband, nursed in the Northern Territory; for my youngest brother, who worked as a teacher in both Arnhem and the Red Centre; for yet another brother, who is currently a Territory firefighter; and for yet another, who served with NORFORCE in the Army.
The Army prepared me for a life of challenges. I served with the 3rd Battalion, Old Faithful, at that time a parachute infantry battalion, and set my sights on commandos. I served with the 1st Commando Regiment, whose members have served with distinction, including on operational service in recent years. For my part, I was proud to be part of securing the Sydney 2000 Olympics with the counter-terrorism task force. It was an absolute honour to serve.
Looking back now, I can see that those experiences prepared me well to serve in the Northern Territory, but I still had a lot to learn, and of course I still do have a lot to learn. After my time in Timor-Leste, I worked in remote Indigenous health service delivery, establishing the Remote Area Health Corps, and also spent time working with and for the Australians who were struggling and less fortunate than others, with the St Vincent de Paul Society, Vinnies.
All of these experiences drew me, I believe, to politics. I am not one to stand on the sidelines. And so I started working for federal parliamentarians and preparing myself for today, to serve the people of Darwin and Palmerston as their representative here in Canberra. I thank former senators Trish Crossin and Nova Peris and, of course, the Hon. Warren Snowdon. Working with them allowed me to meet the people who share the Top End every day, learning more about their needs and helping people.
I want to congratulate the Territory Labor leader and new Chief Minister, Michael Gunner, who was sworn in today as the third Labor Chief Minister and the Territory's 11th Chief Minister since self-government in 1978. Michael and his team absolutely thumped the Country Liberal Party at last weekend's NT election. The CLP is currently a spent force, and the responsibility for that lies with its outgoing leader.
I am so proud to be a member of Territory Labor and I want to thank the true believers, the members and supporters, for their faith in me. I also want to acknowledge the broader Labor movement that are standing up for people's workplace safety, conditions and rights every day. When I look back over this big year for Territory Labor, it is with absolute certainty that with everything we have achieved we did so because we are a united party.
At my first press conference during the election I said I was worried that our GST share was being threatened, and I still am, and I will fight for it because it is the way that we hold and grow the North. What horizontal fiscal equalisation really means is, 'We hold the North, right, it's our home and that's what it costs to deliver services for the people of Darwin and Palmerston and the great Northern Territory.' I will stand up for us and for those who need it most.
So, whether your ancestors spent 15 million nights under Top End stars, whether your family traded with the Macassans centuries ago or survived the bombing of Darwin in 1942 or rebuilt Darwin after Cyclone Tracey on Christmas Day 1974, or whether you are a descendant of generations of settlers from the UK, Europe, the South-East Asian communities, the Mediterranean, Africa or the Pacific, or whether you just came to the Top End to work for three months and never left—whatever brought you to the North—I will not ignore you. I will represent you here in Canberra, and I will keep my feet on the ground.
Darwin has always had economic cycles of growth and slowing growth. The important thing is that we must continue to grow in a sustainable way, that we secure federal investment funding and that we employ our own. We do not want to see our city become the fly-in fly-out capital of Australia. Workforces move around—I get that—but the priority must go to people that have called or want to call our tropical paradise home. My mission is to secure the support from the federal government that is needed for the investment in public infrastructure in our developing northern capital.
We have a vibrant lifestyle with fantastic arts and cultural experiences, including our markets, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Awards, the Darwin Aboriginal Art Fair, the Greek GleNTi, the Italian Festival, the Garrmalang Festival, the Darwin Festival, the Darwin Cup Carnival, the million-dollar barra fishing competition, and major sporting events like the V8s. But we also have national soccer, NRL, rugby and AFL teams travelling to the Top End to play, and next year a first-class tennis centre which will host national and international tournaments.
Darwin is also the base for Australia's National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre, which is a key element of the Australian government's disaster and emergency medical response for incidents of national and international significance. I also believe that our Charles Darwin University is well placed to host a Darwin outpost of the Australian Civil-Military Centre. An ACMC North would let us develop a northern-centric civil-military capability to prevent, prepare for and respond to conflict and disasters. I believe in the power of education and innovation and will be actively supporting emerging entrepreneurs.
Health is one of my areas of focus with the delivery of the $15-million dollar PET Scanner program promised by the current foreign minister six years ago, and then re-promised by the current Prime Minister last month. Before and during the election campaign I visited the Alan Walker Cancer Centre in Darwin, and this month I visited the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne to better understand precisely what equipment and infrastructure the Territory needs. We are the only—only—Australian jurisdiction without a PET scanner, a diagnostic tool which uses radioactive tracers to track the spread of cancer. It was promised by the Prime Minister, and I have spoken with the current health minister, the member for Farrer, about this. I look forward to discussing the details of delivery with her as soon as possible.
The Palmerston Region Hospital, well known by members in this place, is also finally underway, but only after Labor held the coalition government and the Country Liberals to account, and I will make sure the government is held to account for its delivery.
During the federal election campaign this coalition government made a number of other promises, and I will be holding them to task, including: $3.8 million for a 24 bed dementia specific wing at Terrace Gardens; $29.5 million to develop Barneson Boulevard; $8.5 million to Carpentaria for the establishment of a new, purpose-built facility which will allow for the co-location of community, allied health, education, training, and childcare services as part of its $27 million Community 360 Top End Community Hub project; $9.65 million to improve the movement of heavy vehicles in and around Darwin; $1 million for an eternal flame and a pool of reflection in Darwin city; $635,000 for new mobile CCTV cameras for the police; $8 million for the construction of a world class indoor netball stadium at Marrara.
I will work constructively with this government where they are serious about fulfilling their commitments, but I will also hold them to account. Projects like overdue Defence houses at the RAAF Base, Darwin are also on my list. This coalition promised more than $8 billion in Defence infrastructure spending, and we want to be bipartisan with the government whenever we can. But there was $70 million to be spent over the next 10 years upgrading Robertson Barracks. As I said, I am keen to work constructively, but we need to get these infrastructure projects going. I have already had some constructive meetings regarding these projects, because we need to make sure that Territory businesses are not locked out of that Defence work, because our local business have the capacity to deliver.
I will be working with ex-service organisations to build a veterans centre with crisis accommodation, gym facilities and chill out and chat spaces. And I have started fighting the ridiculous decision to take our head Department of Veterans' Affairs position away from the territory. That is not helpful. That is not right. The Vietnam veterans have a saying: 'Honour the dead, but fight like hell for the living.' I was proud to be a part of the effort that secured national recognition of the bombing of Darwin as a day of national significance and, more recently, I was proud that I helped secure support for Operation Bring Them Home, the repatriation of Australian soldiers killed in Vietnam, who were previously buried in Malaysia and Singapore. In Darwin I successfully campaigned to have contemporary veterans' war service in Afghanistan and Iraq acknowledged on the Darwin Cenotaph. But our young veterans need more, and I will be working with them on their priorities.
When I first considered politics as a vocation I was driven by all that has shaped me: the eldest of eight in a working family, then through my time in the Army and then my time into humanitarian and community development work. It is summed up, I believe, in the phrase 'No one gets left behind.' It is a theme of the great Australian Labor Party and it is my pledge to the people of Darwin and Palmerston.
As you fly to my home—and I hope you can all visit soon—it is easy to be mesmerised by the patterns below in the great Australian outback. After a few hours the desert below gives way to tropical savannah and, as our tray tables are stowed, you will catch the first glimpse of the Adelaide River snaking its way to the coast and the Arafura Sea. The big rural properties pass under you: the hundreds of hectares of mangos and the Humpty Doo Barramundi farm; Robertson Barracks, home of the 1st Brigade and the marines; the growing suburbs and CBD of Palmerston; the Elizabeth River; the gas projects on our harbour; the industrial artery following the Stuart Highway into the city; the TIO footy ground at Marrara; and the northern suburbs spreading out to the beaches of Casuarina and beyond.
As we bank over the harbour you see the Darwin CBD, the green spaces, the beaches, the museum and art gallery. Don't worry; we're on final approach now! And for me, I start looking out at our family home in the suburb of Ludmilla. Ludmilla is a Slavic word that means 'favour of the people'. And when I see our tropical home I quietly say to my family below, 'Dad's home; see you soon.'
I have had a most fortunate life. There is a lot of work to do. There is a lot of work ahead. And I thank you for joining with us in Darwin and Palmerston in whatever capacity to grow our home for the good of our country. If you want to live a really great life, we welcome you to join us in the capital of the North.
I love our country, I love our Southern Cross above us and I love my home, the top end of Australia. And, of course, in particular, I love Darwin and Palmerston. So come and visit us. We have a beautiful city with much to see and do. Often on a Friday or Saturday evening we will be down at the ski club, catching up with friends and watching the most amazing sunset. Come and say 'Hi' and I will buy you a beer.
To my party members and the people of Darwin and Palmerston: again, thank you for this great honour, and God bless Australia.
Before I call the honourable member for Goldstein, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.
It is a privilege to represent a division honouring a suffragette. Vida Goldstein was the first woman to seek political office in the British Empire. The 18 October 1913 edition of The Mail of Adelaide wrote of Goldstein that even those 'most strongly opposed to her expressed political views cannot fail to recognise that her efforts are based on sincerity and inspired by a very genuine humanitarianism'. That is the tradition I inherit from her and from my predecessors: Ian Macphee, David Kemp and Andrew Robb. There is no humility that can honour their legacies. They are intimidating, especially to somebody who seeks to follow in their footsteps.
Goldstein's status as a residential retreat with natural beauty, strong community, good schools, village shopping strips, and sporting and sailing clubs draws many. It is a community that embraces a forward-looking, modern liberalism that aspires for economic and social progress built on the preservation of our culture and institutions. I embrace Goldstein as my political home because I share its values: a culture of hard work and enterprise, and of people who want to contribute to make a better Australia. I am proud to say that that embrace has been reciprocated. The people of Goldstein deserve somebody who will represent them, who is prepared to sacrifice for their trust, and I give thanks for that trust today. But it is up to Goldstein's representative to live and honour that trust every day in service.
I have watched with frustration as small politics too often has stifled tackling the big challenges ahead of us. I do not love the game of politics. My interest is public policy and how we secure this country's promise for future generations, and it is time to have some honest conversations. The days of Australia being an island continent producing finished goods for domestic consumption are over. Australia is part of a global supply chain exporting goods and services to the world. We must continue our national mission of economic reform to build Australia's future. Sir Robert Menzies stopped nationalisation and preserved private enterprise. His legacy allowed Hawke, Keating, Howard and Costello to free enterprise for the 21st century, and the latter had the courage to start the shift towards a tax system for our times.
The legacy of my immediate past Goldstein predecessor was to open markets. The benefits of trade agreements begin with the signing of a pen but finish with new opportunity. Our task is to seize that opportunity, but we cannot do so if we are not competitive. Trade is not just about goods; it is about professional service exports too. We live in an age where capital is mobile, and so is talent. Too many of our skilled workers face barriers in foreign markets to practice their profession. Prosperity underpins the pathway to opportunity. We need to restructure industries to create the employers for tomorrow. We can start by driving reform to shift domestic sectors, like financial services and health, into outward-looking export industries.
Constructive reform of the health sector provides one of the greatest opportunities for this nation. It is a sector that is the perfect intersection of the budget, policy, human interest and outcomes, and technology. Technology is disrupting industries every day, and that is not set to change. We are producing more with less, securing efficiencies and displacing vested interests. But there is always a human cost. Those that survive best are those that incrementally adjust. If we do not start to have a sensible discussion around industrial relations, then workers' interests are being put second. Security is no longer achieved by legislation or regulation alone. Wherever the barriers are greatest come the incentive for technology to smash the status quo. Whether they accept it or not, those that argue for inflexible industrial relations are now the enemy of worker security.
The same is true of tax reform. We must stop fiddling at the margins. I have never understood why we tax people more than companies. It fosters perverse incentives for the wealthy to redirect energy to minimising tax, rather than growing profits. Australia has always been a net capital importer. To continue attracting capital, we must have a competitive and just tax system, and we have to move towards a simpler 20 per cent flat personal, company and consumption tax, which would ensure everybody pays—including multinationals on their phantom profits.
In any reform we should always be mindful our social fabric frays easily. When people lose jobs it is not just their hip pockets that suffer, it can be their confidence, security and their perception of opportunity too. At the heart of a just society is intergenerational equity. It recognises those that have passed have met their responsibility and that now we must do the same for those who follow. With an ageing population, many are lonely, isolated, and their closest friendship is a nearby radio. No government program can replace the strength of social bonds, but they can displace them. Society is not delivered by government from Canberra down; it comes from individuals coming together to form family, build community and, ultimately, country. The task of advancing our society now falls to us. We decide the agenda; we set the tone; now it is time for us to rise to the challenge.
Cynicism pervades modern political life, but the best way we can combat that cynicism is to act with integrity. Australians need to see their parliamentarians act with conviction. Politics necessitates compromise on policy, and integrity comes from preferring defeat with your principles than to win without them. But integrity also comes from knowing yourself. The story of finding myself dominated my teenage years. For six of them, I let fear decide and determine who I could be. It was not until I was 18 that I chose to confront that fear. It was a fear that took an energetic 12-year-old and hollowed his confidence to eventually doubt his legitimate place in the world. Yet it was within those depths that I found my deeper, inner strength. And as tormenting as that experience was, it is what has made me strong. I carry the confidence of knowing I have already conquered my worst bully. That is why I do not fear standing up, even when it is deeply unpopular. I am here to fight for the type of country we want to be.
We should never forget that government does not run this country—Australians do, through their everyday pursuits, just like my family. My maternal grandpa left behind the genocide of his people. I never met him—he died before I was born—but I still see him every day when I look into the mirror and into his dark and recessed Armenian eyes. After he married my grandma, together they ran a clothing factory on Gardenvale Road. They lived on Head Street and raised my mum and her sister, Sandra, and later, with grandma's second husband, Kevin. Yet Ronald and Winifred's relationship, despite its value, was defined by the lived prejudice of others toward the marriage of a man with dark olive skin to a woman of Anglo ancestry. And that is why I do not shy away from contemporary debate. It is not just for me. It is to honour the legacy of my grandma and grandpa too.
My dad's mum, Patricia, was a descendant of the Murrays of Athol. She died young in a tragic car accident. Grandad Charles then raised my dad and his siblings, Michael and Patricia, and was later re-married to Granny Yvonne. It is a reminder of what family is. It is not a rigid concept but the resilience that comes from the knitting of hearts. Grandad was awarded Cardinia's Citizen of the Year in 1998. He was earlier honoured Upper Beaconsfield's Citizen of the Year in 1984 for his service as the local GP in the community clinic after the Ash Wednesday bushfires. It earned him reverence, especially since he had lost his home and nearly his life. Outside of grandad's seeming love for a chainsaw—though he was a conservationist as well—and granny's support for her local church, it was their civic mindedness that instilled in me the value of community.
My mum, Linda, and my dad, Robert, met at the Central Hotel on Church Street, which is now known as the Half Moon. Both worked up from pulling beers to running pubs and owning small businesses. In response to my request for pocket money at the age of 11, mum got me a job delivering the Mornington Leader. Later, my sister, Carolyn, and I worked with her at a local reception centre. My brother, Simon, and I mowed lawns and carried timber around worksites for my dad's businesses in school holidays. My mum and dad worked for what they have, and instilled an ethic of work in their children. My family's liberal values are unremarkable. They evolved organically—so much so that Simon and I unknowingly joined the Liberal Party, completely independent of each other, shortly after finishing high school. We were taught to apply ourselves, to appreciate what we had, to stand up for what we believe in and to never judge others. Exactly the same values are held by my step-mum, Janet, and mum's husband, David, and later brought Ryan and I together too.
Everyone here is a reflection of the compounding influence of others. Sometimes others risk tying their own futures to ours, so on days like these they share our success. That is why I am eternally grateful to Michael Josem, David Davis, Alan Oxley, John Roskam, David Kemp, Rod Kemp, Shaun Levin, Cathy Baker, George Brandis, Mick Gooda, Jeannette and Mike Rawlinson, Hanife and John Bushby, and Brett Hogan. And sometimes we are aided by people when we have nothing to give. That is why I share the same sentiment towards Paul Young, Jenny and Allan Lawton, Mark Grogan, Christopher Montabello, Ita Buttrose, Paul Ritchie and the Ostroburski family, particularly my old friend Leo. To all my family—mum, dad, Janet, David, Simon, who I am very glad to see is here today, and my sister, Carolyn—to my friends, especially the large number here in the gallery today, my past and present colleagues, Bayside Forum supporters and Liberal Party members, activists, campaigners and stalwarts, I want you to close your eyes and know these words are for you: thank you. Most importantly, to my fiancee, Ryan: I know you have sacrificed so much for me to be here today, and we are only at the end of the beginning. For seven years a ring has sat on both of our left hands, and they are the answer to a question we still cannot ask. No matter what happens from here, we have already achieved more than many who come and go from this place because we have lived the change we seek in the world.
And that is why I am here—to lead change, to turn liberal values into liberal action. Conservatism teaches us the merit of glancing back to look for what we can learn and bring forward but not for nostalgia. Conservatism calls us to reject grand experiments to socially engineer. It also calls us to reject reactionary behaviour and hold back change to which society has already accommodated itself. Western civilisation is not a story of freedom delivered on a silver platter. It had to be fought for, and it calls people to sacrifice. It evolved out of a slow and incremental understanding that all people are equal in their dignity, that we divide power to stop government forsaking our freedom, that the Commonwealth serves states and is not a Canberra monopoly, that executives come from parliaments and are accountable to them, that people have a government and not the other way around.
And we owe an eternal honour to those who risked or sacrificed their lives to defend that freedom. Being the custodians of this powerful inherited legacy does not call for us to stagnate but to defend it and make our own contribution. As Edmund Burke argued, 'a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation'. We must realise the conservative ambition to encourage couples to sew the first stitch in our social fabric and enter commitments of mutual support to the benefits of the two—and all—and the liberal ambition to preserve the freedom of people to express unpopular and challenging views and ideas, which acts as a safety valve to preserve social cohesion and unity through common citizenship.
Advancing both ambitions may not be economic, or create jobs, but both speak to our cultural confidence as a nation—just like defending free association and religious liberty. And if we expect respect for these values from others, we must also expect them from new Australians too. If we are to preserve these traditions we cannot indulge in cultural relativism. Yet our cultural confidence should be sufficient that we are not threatened by the Indigenous history that preceded us. We are all part of the continuum of this continent's journey and story.
The most satisfying work I did as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner was to build bridges between cultures and work with Indigenous Australians to build the case for full respect of one of the most important inheritances of Western civilization—property rights. And that is what Sir Robert Menzies understood when he formed our great party for Australia: that conservatism is a virtue, not a vision. It can be an anchor, but liberalism will always be our compass. A smart young man, Callum Shaw, said recently that the Liberal Party is successful when it is seen to be 'bringing the future forward.' And we are liberals. Our interest is the future.
The triumph of identity politics is to turn people inward and see differences first, and not our unity. We must never play into the hands of our opponents who want us to abandon liberalism for a moniker that defines what we are against. If we do, we raise a white flag and allow the future to be defined by others, only to temper the speed at which they take us there. The Fabians always sought an anaesthetisation from liberal democracy to the socialist alternative, through incremental tax rises on the productive, and the permissiveness of welfare and dependence. The consequence of this dehumanizing path has never been more real. Today, they dismiss free choice as an irresponsible luxury in subservience to the rising costs they deliberately shoulder onto the state.
I will not accept that future. I was not elected to slow their success—because there is an alternative liberal vision for this country, and it speaks to our ambition for national unity, the pursuit of freedom, justice and responsibility and our optimism for tomorrow. It is a vision built on mutual respect for each other's humanity, individuality and freedom to pursue their life, family, opportunity and enterprise. That vision values family—irrespective of their sum, or their parts. It appeals to a human compassion, not motivated by pity but by firm heads and soft hearts. Liberalism creates an opportunity society, where social mobility for the next generation is preserved through equal opportunity, but which understands reward comes from taking risk and responsibility, and in which we favour work because of the autonomy, dignity and security it provides.
We know people sometimes fall down. That is why we respect the speed at which they seek to pick themselves back up. People cannot always do it alone, and that is why family and community are so important. They form the first support in a rebounding safety net, not a cosseting one. It is a rejection of the selfishness that comes with the needless dependence, because it burdens others and abrogates our responsibility to those who cannot stand on their own two feet—and it understands that everything the government touches, it taxes.
Our support for free markets is underpinned by the prosperity and efficiency they deliver, but our commitment comes from knowing that the task of climbing economic mountains reveals character and skill. Yet we know that markets must be just, deliver human outcomes and provide pathways that regulatory roads block. That acknowledges that, as imperfect as the showerhead of trickle-down economics may be, history shows its flow is more dispersed than the garden hose our opponents prefer, and invariably hydrates those closest to power.
It is an ethos that prioritises reason, technological progress and scientific endeavour, to drive and realise progress and care for the environment. It knows that science and the environment must serve humanity, not be the dictator of it, and that progress inspires a glint in our eye, reflecting our confidence that the future is going to be awesome. And if we want the vulnerable to see the opportunity of tomorrow, they must feel secure today. We know there is no 'new' or 'old' economy; just the opportunity of service and technology industries financed by wealth created by mining, agriculture and value-added manufacturing, where the next generation are not shackled by the debt of others—because, as the finance minister said recently, 'today's debts are tomorrow's taxes,' and the young will not be free to pursue their own destiny.
Ultimately, we support these principles because they are the first line of defence to preserve our economic, social and national security by creating an investment all Australians have in a shared future. The people of Goldstein know that Australia can have a better future if we take responsibility today. The best days are ahead, but they are earned, not given. Liberalism is always most successful when people can see their lives lived through our values, because it provides a pathway for individual achievement and we can move forward together. Thank you.
Before I call the honourable member for Perth, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech, and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. I call the honourable member for Perth.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations on your re-election to your very important office.
I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land upon which we meet, and pay my respects to their elders, both past and present. I also acknowledge the traditional owners, the Noongar people, of my local community, and also pay my respects to their elders, both past and present.
I stand before all of you today, incredibly honoured and privileged at the trust that has been placed in me, by my local community, my friends and my family, as I address this chamber in my capacity as the federal member for Perth for the very first time. That only 10 others since Federation have been able to make such a claim brings the magnitude of this privilege into even sharper focus. But we are by our very nature, having arrived here today, a competitive bunch and we all quite rightly claim more boldly than each other that the respective qualities of our electorates surpass easily all the rest. And not for the first time you will hear me make a confident yet possibly unqualified claim to it being beyond contention that the federal seat of Perth actually beats them all. I could extol the virtues of my local community until you have all gone home and the lights have gone out. Bordered by Perth city itself, Kings Park and flanked by the Swan River, the result is unrivalled beauty and a diversity of ethnicities, cultures and values. A truly wonderful, culturally-rich place with opportunities but also challenges around every corner. To the men and women in the federal seat of Perth: I am only here today because of the faith you have all placed in me, and I will not let you down.
I am also incredibly honoured upon entering this place to have been allocated additional portfolio responsibilities in the shadow executive as shadow assistant minister for Western Australia, resources, innovation, the digital economy and start-ups. Western Australia is of course important for a whole lot more than just mining and resources; but, having said that, the economic impact that the mining industry has upon our community is significant and cannot be overstated. In 2013-14, for example, the mining sector contributed $78 billion or almost one-third of Western Australia's output alone. Once the impact of the resources sector is taken into account in relation to indirect employment opportunities and community engagement, it is abundantly clear that the key driver to our future prosperity in Western Australia involves careful planning and risk management of the resources industry so that all Western Australians, and indeed all Australians, continue to derive the benefit from such an important and incredibly valuable part of our community.
No discussion of the interface between the resources sector in Western Australia and government would be complete without recognising the work of Gary Gray, the former member for Brand. Indeed, I owe Gary a great deal both for his support and friendship and also for the fact that he has the enduring confidence of the sector, which helps us greatly in ensuring a smooth transition from the past to the present.
I am also incredibly excited about having the opportunity to contribute our national conversation in relation to innovation, the digital economy and start-ups. Our communities and our places of work are changing forever primarily due to rapid advances in technology, innovative disruption and automation and it seems to me that our great challenge as a nation is to search out new ways of work and, more importantly, to make sure that our workers of today and tomorrow are ready to take their place in the global economy.
In my areas of portfolio responsibility, I have the great fortune of working not only with our leader, Bill Shorten the honourable member for Maribyrnong, but other immensely intelligent and hardworking shadow ministers in the member for Blaxland, Jason Clare; and Senator Kim Carr. To you all: I thank you in advance for what will be significant patience required. And a word of warning to all three of you: if the phrase 'what Tim lacks in natural talent he certainly makes up for in enthusiasm' springs to your mind as I undertake those responsibilities, I can assure you that you are not singing solo. It is a common refrain shared by every teacher, friend or mentor I have had since about the age of five and, on reflection, it was probably events of about that time that indirectly have caused me to arrive in this place. Mercifully for each and every one of you, restrictions on time limits on first speeches mean that I shall limit my story since that age to the abridged version. Growing up, if I possessed a character trait that rivalled my rampant enthusiasm, it was insatiable curiosity. My wife suggested that is just being plain nosey, but I beg to differ.
With a strict no-television-in-the-mornings policy in our house growing up, all roads actually led to the daily newspaper—The West Australian, for those seeking particulars. I would religiously read The West Australian in the morning, half of the thrill to see if I could put it back together in its preruffled state before the old man got to reading it because, if I did not, the result was not pretty. But I can assure members that any connection between a plug for 'the West' and the allegation that they went very easy on me in the course of the election campaign is purely coincidence and is more due to the fact that I live an entirely boring and unblemished life. Any alleged impeachable conduct almost certainly occurred in my youth, well before the digital age, and therefore never occurred at all!
Some 15 years later, my habit of reading the daily papers continued, and on one particular day—it was actually 12 June 1996—I was a twenty-something, long-haired university student who could not grow a bid to save my life. Meandering through an arts degree, I stumbled quite literally by chance across a story in the paper that was so powerful that it actually changed the direction of my life. The story was about Rex Dagi, a tribesman from a village in remote Papua New Guinea who, on behalf of tens of thousands of his fellow villagers, took BHP on in the Australian courts in a class action alleging wrongdoing for the damage done to the once crystal clear Fly and Ok Tedi rivers that now flowed hopelessly polluted past his home. And Rex Dagi was successful.
It might actually be the closest I will ever come to experiencing a moment of complete clarity, because right then it became pretty clear that with enough tenacity, with enough hard work, with more than a bit of luck and sheer force of will victory for a just cause was achievable even against an opponent who on face value just seemed too big, too well resourced, too clever.
I went in search of the Perth lawyer John Gordon, who acted for Rex Dagi and his thousands of fellow villagers. John would be much too modest ever to admit it, but for those wannabe lawyers like me in search of a legal 'light on the hill' John Gordon was a modern incarnation of Chifley. John gave me a chance, and I grabbed it and latched onto it like a limpet. And what a ride it was: too young to be fearful, crashing out or crashing through court cases that coincidentally took me to Papua New Guinea as the Ok Tedi litigation continued and then on to Bougainville and another class action, being confronted by armed rebels and bitten by a mangy dog, all in the quest for justice.
I also experienced working alongside litigation giants like Peter Gordon during the time he and others took on the fight against big tobacco on behalf of a dying Rolah McCabe, as she was stricken with lung cancer and breathing her last breaths. Being in the thick of those fights against such powerful, well-resourced and well-organised opponents taught me that we could not always rely upon large corporates to get it right. Sometimes it was essential for someone to be there to hold them to account, to ask tough and uncomfortable questions and seek justice on behalf of those whose voices were otherwise not heard. It was a desire to help remedy that injustice that took me closer to home, back to Perth, to work as a lawyer and then a barrister representing in the courts men and women who were dying from mesothelioma and lung cancer, their lives robbed in the cruellest manner possible by an insidious and vile industrial disease caused by exposure to asbestos. Almost without exception, decades of their lives, their love, their laughter and their memories were stolen from these women and men as a result of exposure to a deadly dust in circumstances that were entirely preventable—preventable because available knowledge surrounding the harm caused by exposure to asbestos had existed as far back as the 1890s. But the reality was that asbestos companies, employers and governments had simply not done enough to stop people from getting sick. Good government could have fixed it but it was not fixed, and people died because it was not fixed. My working life became bedside courtrooms, shaking hands with my dying client as we landed a settlement just hours before trial. What I will never, ever forget about those handshakes is that they went on for just a little too long, with the grasp just a little bit too tight. It was too tight and it was too long because you could tell they just wanted to hold on to a life as theirs was slipping away.
Outside the courtroom, while all that was going on, it took a Labor government in New South Wales to step up and set up a special commission of inquiry to investigate whether James Hardie had left enough money behind to compensate current and future victims of asbestos disease. It is now common knowledge, of course, that they had not. And then we saw Greg Combet and the trade union movement, together with the victims groups, led by Robert Vojakovic and Bernie Banton, hammer out a deal that made James Hardie stay and pay. But where all of that actually began was with good government done well in setting up that special commission of inquiry. That is what brought me to the Labor Party—it was a Labor government making decisions to keep James Hardie accountable while having the welfare of ordinary working women and men in front of mind.
Much of my legal work, which it has been a privilege over the years to undertake, has been for precisely the same reason that I want to be here: to do whatever it takes to get outcomes that are fair, reasonable and just. More recently that has taken me to the far reaches of the north-west of Western Australia, dragging a courtroom out to remote Aboriginal communities in the Kimberley, getting compensation for Aboriginal victims of road trauma on instructions from a rough-and-tumble, crazy-brave bush lawyer by the name of Tom Cannon, who is also known as 'the crash-bash man' to his Aboriginal clients, for many of whom English is a second language.
I have always had the belief that distributive justice, or at the very least compensation, to address a wrongdoing can go a very long way to restoring a balance when injustice has occurred. But it is actually here, in this place, on behalf of our electorates and with the beliefs that we all hold so dear, that I think we actually have a chance to get ahead of that curve, to improve lives, to improve outcomes in our communities and, most importantly, to enact laws that stop injustice or inequity from occurring. I really want to be a part of that. I want to be able to contribute on behalf of those in our community who, for one reason or another, just cannot advocate for themselves.
I believe that when federal government is done well it is the most effective and efficient means by which to improve the lives of every Australian. My best guess is that we achieve positive change in politics by being bold, by being a big target; sometimes by doing a lot of little things, even boring things, which result in living a big life in this place; putting our collective reputations on the line by spelling out how we will improve outcomes in education and health or create more jobs that will see us punch above our weight globally.
Being brave and bold saw us avoid a recession in the wake of the global financial crisis. I could not be more proud—together with having the utmost respect for the member for Lilley and my great friend Jim Chalmers, the member for Rankin—to say that I am actually now part of a federal parliamentary team that in 2008 and 2009 created hundreds of thousands of jobs, which meant this country avoided recession while the rest of the developed world reeled from the effect of the GFC.
Being brave and bold saw us challenge the paradigm of care and support for the catastrophically injured and unwell when Labor created the National Disability Insurance Scheme under the guiding hand of our current leader, Bill Shorten, whom I first met on the campaign trail in 2010 when I was trying to dislodge the member for Swan—who I see, as I look across the chamber, is still stubbornly here! What struck me at the time was how committed and focused Bill was in encouraging the disability sector to organise in a way that meant working together with Labor to achieve unstoppable change for the ultimate benefit of the disabled or impaired—and their carers—all of whom had been marginalised in our society for just too long.
I keep the faith that somehow, somewhere we will eventually see the completion of what could be our most magnificent infrastructure project since the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme: a proper National Broadband Network that is truly futureproof, with the capacity to unleash our enormous potential onto the world.
I believe that good government done well will address once and for all the overwhelming and institutionalised pain of Aboriginal Australians and those abused while in institutional care. Good government done well has a responsibility to steer our national conversation to a place that recognises and celebrates diversity and tolerance, not to a place where it is shouted down.
Representing in a courtroom men and women dying of asbestos disease has taught me that every single second is precious and life is very short.
Our obligation is to live a big life. But living a big life does not mean making a big noise or even arriving here. Living a big life means something unique to all of us. There is no playbook; there is no template.
Our recent federal campaign was a big campaign with big ideas and it was a campaign I was incredibly proud to be a part of. I thank our leader Bill Shorten, the honourable member for Maribyrnong; my great friend Chris Bowen; Tanya Plibersek; Anthony Albanese; Mark Dreyfus; Ed Husic and a host of others for all of the unwavering support that they have provided me without any hesitation at all over a gruelling 100-day campaign, to allow us to keep the federal seat of Perth in Labor hands. But I thank more than anyone else my beautiful wife Lindsay and my little girls Sidney and O'Hara, or more commonly known as Sid and Harry. You guys are everything to me. Lindsay, I know that you know I am brimming with pride at the moment but, make no mistake, as moments go it comes fourth behind the birth of our two girls and of course getting married to you. None of this will work for the right reasons unless we are in it together and by each other's sides.
To my campaign team and my immediate predecessor Alannah MacTiernan; to Bruce, Tommy Cazaly, Rob, John, Megan, Ron, Daniel, Mark, Prue, Colleen, Wade Lapp and Chris Prast; to my adviser, campaign auditor and all-time polling day sidekick, Stephen Smith: thanks to all of you and thank you to hundreds of others who helped me on the campaign. Thank you to all of the branch members in the federal seat of Perth and in Western Australia generally and thank you to the mighty North Perth branch of course and to all of the others whose names time, sadly, does not permit me to mention. To the trade union movement for supporting me and my campaign, but in particular Gerard Dwyer and Peter O Keefe at the SDA, Scott McDine, Stephen Price and Mike Zoedbroot at the AWU and Tony Sheldon and Tim Dawson at the TWU, thank you. To the Praetorian Guard—Lenda, Brendan, Laurence—none of us is having fun.
To my lifelong mates, some of whom have made the trip from various capital cities around Australia and are here in the gallery today—thank you. To the Q court, you will always be my ethical and philosophical compass. Thank you to my mum, my sisters Karen and Megan, and to Jaci and Ivan. To the ones I love who are not here anymore, I constantly look to you for inspiration—David Prast, Sharon Fletcher and of course my Dad, now gone more than 10 years.
As you can see many people have helped me live a big life in this world, but our new world does not sit cosily alongside our old world. Our teenagers are more likely to use their spare time collaborating with 20 other programmers, artists and writers all over the world in real time to create web based computer games in their bedroom in their spare moments. Globalisation seems to be now. Our challenge seems to be to embrace this change, not chase after it in a clumsy attempt to catch up. That means a new conversation about what it means for mums, dads and kids. Most of all it means a new conversation about what it means for prosperity, for productivity and for creating new jobs.
I remain completely convinced now, more than ever, that a Labor government is best placed to create an opportunity for our old and new generations to strive to achieve a new Australian community that takes the best of who we are and applies it to our new world, to give every single Australian the opportunity to exercise their fundamental right to achieve their full potential, to skill-up workers transitioning out of traditional employment roles so they can grab with both hands the opportunities in our digital economy and everything that it has to offer, to invest in our kids, to close the gap, to care for the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society and to make marriage equality a reality right now. That is good government done well.
When I am done and when we turn out the lights and the next member for Perth takes my place what do I hope my contribution to public life might look like? I just want the people of Perth, my colleagues and my party to know that I have given it everything. I just want to play a very small part in my own way in creating a prosperous Australia that is competitive on the world stage. I want my family to be proud of what I have worked towards and I hope above all else that my girls think I have done okay. Because if I can achieve all of that I do not reckon life gets any bigger.
The chair congratulates the member for Perth on his maiden speech and we welcome you to the chamber.
May I also congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your return to this chamber and your return to the Speaker's panel. I am sure that we will share plenty of good times together on the Speaker's panel over the next three years.
The stubborn member for Swan.
The stubborn member—I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Perth for his maiden speech. I was glad to hear him focusing on the mining sector in Western Australia and talking about how important it is to our economy, and also the fact that Gary Gray was a great member for Brand in Western Australia. One of the things I would like to remind the member for Perth about is that I know privately that Gary Gray would never have imposed a mining tax on the West Australian industry.
Play nice for once.
I am playing nice. I think the member for Perth is a fantastic person. When we ran the campaign together back in 2010 it was called 'the gentlemen's campaign', because we were both very cordial towards each other and did not get down in the gutter like many of our colleagues in other seats did. It was a pleasure to have a combat with a man of the quality of the member for Perth. I know he grew up in the electorate of Swan and I know his parents were highly respected within the Swan electorate as well, as he was in the time he lived there and attended the schools there as well. I am sure the member for Wakefield, who is on the opposition bench at the moment, will be pleased to hear that there is a due amount of respect between me and the member for Perth.
It is a pleasure to be back here in the 45th Parliament of Australia representing the people of Swan for the fourth time. A stat that was given to me after the election is that this is the first time the Liberal Party has won the seat of Swan four times in a row since 1960. I am proud of that achievement.
They have got such a great member.
Thank you, member for Wannon. You do not have to stop; you can keep going if you like. For the past nine years it has been my privilege to represent the widely diverse group of people who live in Swan. I would like to now make a few comments about the campaign in Swan. As we prepared ourselves for the longest campaign in more than half a century I could not have been more appreciative to those who contributed towards retaining the seat of Swan. Over the eight-week campaign we had over 500 volunteers—people who devoted themselves to achieving the end result of keeping a Liberal in the seat of Swan. The 500 volunteers did letterboxing in their local areas, did volunteering at one of the 33 booths, did envelope stuffing or put yard signs in their front gardens. I was appreciative of their efforts towards the retention of the seat of Swan.
One of these volunteers was Liberal stalwart Ray Peek, who at the age of 88 was one of our star letterboxers. Ray, your commitment to the Liberal cause is inspiring and I would like to personally thank you for all your efforts not only in this campaign but for the entire four decades you have been a member of the Liberal Party. I also wish you all the best with Margaret, who I know is not in the best of health at the moment. I know you will be spending time by her bedside. I wish you and Margaret the best, Ray.
The successful campaign was a testament to the support I received from each and every volunteer, who devoted themselves to a government who are committed to budget repair, stability and cohesion and who are not prepared to sit idly by and let Labor's lies and untruths take advantage of vulnerable Australians—I will return to this later. I would like to thank my wife and campaign manager, Cheryle, who is well known within this place. The hard work she put into the Swan campaign each and every single day was astonishing. Her dedication to the campaign was evident in the professionalism she showed in her approach to coordinating our volunteers. I cannot thank her enough for all she did and all she continues to do as I serve the people of Swan. I am very proud of her.
When I returned to the House for my third term I noted that we put forward positive local plans for the people of Swan, that we outlined a positive plan that would help shape the future of Swan. As I return today for my fourth term I stand by the positive approach to politics. At the start of the campaign, unfortunately, I was labelled a rich white man by the Labor candidate. Those who know my background I am sure can see the irony of that, as I came from a very low-SES background. To be labelled like that I am sure would make many people raise the spectre of 18C, which I did not do.
Lucky you have got a thick skin.
Well I have had to listen to you for nine years, so I had to develop a thick skin.
Glorious years.
Yes, glorious years. I do admit that I am getting encore from the members who came in in 2007, at the same time I did. We must talk about that. At that time eight coalition members came in. There are still seven of us here.
Is that right?
Yes. There were 34 Labor members and there are only 11 of them left from 2007.
Quality they are.
Quality—the cream has risen to the top. I see that they have nobbled the member for Moreton by giving him the role of whip.
Despite the personal attacks we made sure we could hold our head high and continue to strive for the best possible election outcome for the people of Swan. In 2007, 2010, 2013 and now 2016 I established a plan for the community of Swan. It is my job as the community's representative to consult with them, establish the needs of the electorate and then develop a plan through which we are able to meet those needs. The campaign period provided us with an opportunity to communicate this plan and allowed constituents to decide which candidate was best fit to deliver. I have always tried to focus on community infrastructure which will meet the future needs of our growing community. Now we have six concrete commitments to the people of Swan and I look forward to a very busy and very exciting three years ahead.
The coalition has invested $490 million in the Forrestfield-airport rail link, which goes straight through my electorate. The link will connect residents to the airport and to the Perth CBD. There will be three new stations. The first will be Forrestfield, which is the outreach. Perth's eastern and south-eastern suburbs will be connected to the CBD and Perth airport. This will provide commuters with a short 20-minute journey into Perth's CBD. The airport central station will service the main Perth airport terminal. It has been designed to meet projected 2022 customer demand. Finally, the Belmont underground station, which is part of that link, will have a bus-train interchange and a 500- to 1,000-bay car park. It will allow commuters to travel to the CBD in only 15 minutes. The Forrestfield-airport link is a fantastic infrastructure project for the electorate and will change the way each of my constituents commutes.
Building on the government's unprecedented transport infrastructure package, I am also overjoyed by our commitment to fund the Manning Road on-ramp. We initially made a commitment back in 2010 for this project. Unfortunately, back in 2010 we just missed out on getting over the line and being able to fund that project.
The Manning Road on-ramp has been an important local issue in Swan, and one that I have campaigned on for many years with the support of the hardworking local MLA, John McGrath, who again has assisted in many ways and supported the drive to get funding for the Manning Road on-ramp. As most of my constituents and many other Perth drivers are aware, the Manning Road is a major road that runs through the south of the electorate, connecting residents to the Kwinana Freeway. Curtin University is also on Manning Road, which means that, with an enrolment of nearly 40,000 students, Manning Road is heavily used and requires fixing to have the on-ramp heading south, not only to the southern suburbs but also to the new hospital.
Any car that needs to join the freeway going south from Manning Road currently has to endure a difficult stretch of road before doing a loop all the way around the freeway that involves heading north, merging and lane-changing back across the Canning Bridge before heading south on the Kwinana Freeway. Then they have to merge with traffic coming off the freeway to get back onto the freeway. Not only does it cause great frustration to many motorists but it is a very dangerous design for one of Swan's busiest roads. To amend this we have now committed $15 million towards a southbound on-ramp at the Manning Road and Kwinana Freeway intersection, and we look forward to successful participation from the state government as well.
The provision of southbound access to the freeway will provide better access to Curtin University and now, of course, to the new Fiona Stanley Hospital in Murdoch, with more patients needing to travel south to attend the hospital or emergency department from this major road.
In addition, our federal Treasurer, Mr Scott Morrison, personally visited Swan to announce the coalition's $9.675 million investment in the Belmont community centre, which will include the library, a senior citizens centre and a Belmont museum. This funding will also ensure that vital community services within the area of Belmont will be housed for free within this community centre. Many of the services they provide assist locals within the Belmont community, which is the second lowest SES rated community in Western Australia. These vital community services are currently operating in facilities well past their use-by date.
Labor actually opposed this centre in writing to the City of Belmont, which was extremely disappointing for the people of Swan. Thankfully, Labor's campaign was unsuccessful, and we, along with the City of Belmont, will deliver the community centre, providing an important boost for the region and delivering the City of Belmont's vision for the precinct as the centre of Belmont and a place for all community members to enjoy.
Another community infrastructure initiative that I have been heavily involved in is the Lathlain Park development. We are investing $13 million in the Town of Victoria Park to fund the development, which will drive local jobs and growth in Victoria Park. The development will be the new administration and training centre for the West Coast Eagles—who, I must admit, had some success in Adelaide last week, toppling the Adelaide Crows in the lead-up to the finals, and that means they will now have a home final next Thursday night at the current Subiaco Oval. That development will see the West Coast Eagles move out to Lathlain, in my electorate, with a $67 million infrastructure program. It will include tennis, netball and volleyball courts; a playground and BBQ area; and computer facilities, with a focus on modern technology to drive local innovation and education.
It will also house the Wirrpanda Foundation. I would like to thank Minister Bishop, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and member for Curtin, for coming down to Lathlain during the election campaign to announce the $3 million grant for the relocation of the Wirrpanda Foundation within integrated facilities, alongside the West Coast Eagles, at Lathlain Park. This supports local jobs as part of our commitment to support more Indigenous Australians to complete school and transition into work or further study. The new site will provide innovative, purpose-built spaces, setting new standards for community and recreational facilities. For those who are like-minded when it comes to the AFL, there will be two ovals at the new facility. One will be the exact dimensions of the MCG, for the Eagles to train on, and the other one will be the exact dimensions of the new stadium—again, in my electorate—which will be completed in the next 18 months and is well ahead of schedule.
The Lathlain facilities also house the Perth Football Club. My dear friend Vince Pendal, who was the president back in the late eighties for a while, then became president again in 2011 and has been president since then, unfortunately passed away two weeks ago from cancer. So Vince will not see the outcome of all his efforts to have his beloved Perth Demons housed in the same facility and grounds as the West Coast Eagles.
As the community of Swan continues to grow, so too does the need to ensure the safety of its residents. The government will provide $300,000 to upgrade 71 streetlights over eight kilometres in the Town of Victoria Park, under the Safer Communities Fund, to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. The streetlights will be upgraded to maximum capacity in East Victoria Park, the St James residential area and the Burswood industrial district adjoining the Burswood train station. These areas have been identified as crime hotspots. Everyone has the right to feel safe in their own neighbourhood, and better lighting is supported as an effective deterrent to criminal activity.
Just as we strive to protect our constituents, we strive too to protect our natural environment. Swan gets its name from the Swan River, which wraps itself around the north and west of the electorate and is named after the famous black swans of its local surroundings. In the south, the Canning River provides the electorate's border. Both rivers are landmarks not only within the electorate of Swan but also for the City of Perth and the great state of Western Australia. It is of great importance that we endeavour to protect, and aid in the recovery of, the Swan and Canning rivers. Stage 2 of the Swan-Canning River Recovery Program delivers another $1 million and a new Green Army project to help finish the job of eradicating the hydrocotyle weed. The Green Army team will work in partnership with local community groups to deliver the projects. This project will perform environmental restoration work on the Swan and Canning rivers to continue reducing the overall extent and intensity of hydrocotyle. It will also improve local riverbanks and protect threatened species' habitats, including those of the Carnaby's black-cockatoo and other local migratory animals.
This important environmental initiative is a much-needed project which will help to ensure that our local rivers and environment are improved and that threatened species' habitats are strengthened. In the Canning River regional area, there are 17 volunteer environment groups who regularly are out doing work, cleaning up and getting rid of noxious weeds, and who are part of the initiative that the funding went towards, which was to supply the necessary goods and tools for use by the volunteer groups—and they provided the labour free of charge. So it was a win for everyone, not only for the community and the volunteer groups, but also for the environment in the Swan-Canning regional area.
These funding commitments highlight this government's willingness to invest in long-term projects which provide economic benefits, not just in Swan but across electorates around the country, investing in jobs and community infrastructure. Through the commitments I have mentioned, Swan is receiving a total of $519 million for major local infrastructure projects, community safety and the environment. In doing so, this government is providing opportunities for the people of Swan.
In stark contrast to this, Labor offered its candidate for Swan only a $300,000 commitment to Swan's Sussex Street Community Law Service. It is an important service, nonetheless, but yet another disappointing offer for the residents of Swan—residents who deserve far more for the community in which they live and work; residents who continue to invest far more than Labor ever has done in their own community.
Whilst on the tone of Labor disappointing constituents, I would like to return to Labor's `MediScare' campaign, which appears to have been the only successful commitment they did deliver on. Over the campaign, my office received countless calls from concerned, scared and elderly constituents. One lady I spoke to was 85 and she received a call at 10:30 at night, which woke her up, and she was told we were going to privatise Medicare. It was a disgraceful way to campaign by scaring elderly people into changing their vote. Let's hope we do not see it again.
It was an O'Connor trait.
We were not mentioning any names. We will not go into that. Labor claimed our government would privatise Medicare and in turn cut much-needed services—which we have not done and we are not going to do. Again, it was another Labor lie. What won't they do? Anything it takes. What is that famous catchcry? Anything that it takes. Labor lied to prey on Australia's most disadvantaged, just so they could have something, anything, to base their election campaign on.
While our government was driving budget repair, jobs, growth and a plan that would deliver for all Australians, Labor drove the political tactics and, quite frankly, abused the trust of voters. Despite this, the people of Swan saw through those lies and returned me to serve as their federal member for a fourth term, and the people of Australia returned our government. They have sent a message to all of us that, if they want strong leadership, transparency and a government that has the ability to deliver on its commitments, they have once again put their faith in us in what is a critical time for stability—economically and in the current international climate.
For those who are interested in statistics, of the 84,464 votes counted in Swan, I received 48.18 per cent of the first preference vote in Swan. I think Western Australia led the first preference votes for the Liberal Party across the whole country. We managed to maintain our primary vote above the 2010 election. Despite redistributions, it was a great effort to receive that 48.18 per cent of primary vote.
The electorate of Swan understands our party's values, our government's actions and, of course, they can see the value of the infrastructure that we have continued to deliver for them over the nine years I have been lucky enough to represent them.
As I return for my fourth term as the member for Swan and as a member of the 45th Parliament of Australia, I look forward to building on the initiatives of this government, including all, but not limited to, budget repair, creating jobs for all Australians and maintaining our strong border policy.
Can I begin by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your position on the Speaker's panel. Even though it is not my first speech, I am going to treat it as my second first speech. Let's hope there is never a third first speech for the sake of everyone in this place and for the sake of my family, friends and colleagues.
I would like to start off by saying what a privilege and honour it is to be here. To be here in this place is something very special. To be here, as I said, is special and I would like to congratulate all of you who have been returned and all the newly members of parliament.
I also wish to acknowledge those who have served in this place before me, representing Hindmarsh. Firstly, the former member, Matt Williams, and I wish him all the best and for his contribution over the last three years. Regardless of what side of parliament we sit on and regardless of what side of politics we come from, I think we all come here with one thing in mind, and that is to create a better Australia. I would like to acknowledge that for all members in this place.
I also acknowledge Christine Gallus, who was the member before I was elected in 2004 and her work is fondly remembered in the electorate. She was a very hard worker; she was also a very formidable opponent and my sparring partner for a number of years. Before Chris Gallus there was John Scott, who was the member for Hindmarsh, who still lives in the electorate and who is still very active in the community. I see him from time to time and I value the advice he gives from time to time.
And how could you talk about Hindmarsh without mentioning Clyde Cameron? He was the very first person I handed out how-to-vote cards for back in the '70s. He was an absolute ALP stalwart, a cabinet minister in the Whitlam government and instrumental in reforming industrial relations in this nation, as well as being very involved in the labour movement.
I would also like to mention very quickly Liz Harvey, now known as Liz Truman, and good old Ralph Jacobi, both of whom represented the seat of Hawker, which was the southern part of my electorate and merged with Hindmarsh in 1993.
I would also like to acknowledge all the members from both places who were not re-elected, like my good friend Senator Anne McEwen. I would like to acknowledge the good work she did while she was in the other house. She so narrowly missed out on being returned to office. For those who were not returned, I know what that feels like. I've been there and I've done that. I really feel for all who were not returned.
I suppose I stand here today under quite extraordinary circumstances. There are not many people who get the opportunity to serve three terms in a row, have a three-year hiatus out of this place and then make a comeback.
As I said, I have had the extraordinary honour of serving the electorate for three terms. I ran twice—in 1998 and in 2001—and was successful in 2004 when I won by 108 votes. I sat in this very same place, so this seat here has my name written all over it.
This time it felt like a landslide—1,140 votes, which is fairly substantial when you compare it to 2004. I have had that humbling experience of not being returned and of now being back here. I believe there are only 12 MPs who served three or more terms that have ever made such a comeback. One of them is our good friend Warren Snowdon, who is here in the chamber.
After an election, the word 'privilege' is thrown about by many, so much so that it sounds like a cliche, but I cannot think of a more appropriate word than privilege. It is an absolute privilege to be given a second chance and to be in this chamber. While not being returned in 2013 was certainly hard—it was hard for me and my family—I believe it made me a stronger and even more determined advocate for the people of Hindmarsh. For this return, I express my sincere thanks to the good constituents of Hindmarsh and for giving me this opportunity once again. I promise I won't let you down.
I am no stranger to determination. Hindmarsh is one of the most marginal seats in the country. Today, it is the second most marginal after that of my good friend Cathy O'Toole here, the member for Herbert. I have fought for, won and lost this seat with the slimmest of margins. Each time the outcome has been uncertain, but it never ever deterred me from fighting as hard as I could, not just to win the seat but also to go on and fight for those constituents. Those that fall through the cracks, those who are unemployed and those who for whatever reason have been marginalised. It is our upmost duty to do that, to represent them and to ensure that we have a safety net to catch these people and make their lives slightly better.
One of the benefits of living in a marginal seat is that you get noticed. Not so much as the member—there is a lot of focus on the members—but the people of Hindmarsh get noticed. The good residents of Hindmarsh, the good voters of Hindmarsh, know this and understand this. I undertake to apply the same determination to ensuring that in this term of parliament their voices are heard and their concerns are taken seriously. Of course, this is something that I have always endeavoured to do as the federal member for Hindmarsh.
There is a great deal that I, together with my Labor colleagues, am very proud of when we were on that side of the House and on this side of the House that we have helped achieve for the people of Hindmarsh. For example, the establishment of an Adelaide Airport ombudsman was a private member's bill that I put up on two occasions and presented. I was very pleased when the then minister for transport, Anthony Albanese, made it a government bill. That was an achievement for the people in the electorate. They now have an independent umpire. They have someone who is totally independent to deal with their complaints and their issues.
Pushing the Torrens-to-Torrens project together with Kate Ellis, the member for Adelaide, was a big thing. I recall Anthony Albanese, as minister for transport, being in our electorate turning the very first sod when the then opposition, under the leadership of Tony Abbott, were arguing that it wasn't a priority. But those opposite heard the voices of the people of the electorates of Adelaide and Hindmarsh very clearly when they got into government and decided to go ahead with it and claim it as their very own project. But we knew, and the people of Hindmarsh knew, that it was the Labor government that ensured that project.
Another example was securing funding for the King Street Bridge, which was a bridge that was owned and run by the local council in Glenelg. For many years, under the Howard government and under the former coalition governments, the council applied for funding. They applied very hard to get this new bridge because the old bridge had something called 'concrete cancer,' which meant that it could collapse at any moment. It had been closed down for a number of months. I am very pleased once again that we achieved the funding for that bridge. I am very proud of it every time I drive over it and see the thousands of people that use it every single day.
They are just a few of the achievements under a Labor government when I was here last. The dedication of the people of Hindmarsh in ensuring that they got their message to me, as their voice in this place, ensured that those projects that assist them came to fruition.
As I said, in coming back to this place I am determined not to just sit here. I am here to continue getting results for my electorate, and that is what I will be focusing on every single day. I undertake to persist in fighting for the issues that I campaigned on in this election and the last campaign, such as the Brown Hill Keswick Creek Stormwater Project. We finally have the agreement of all our local councils and our state government. All we need is the federal government to come on board.
The Brown Hill Keswick Creek Stormwater Project is a mitigation program for flooding. There are 2,000 homes in my electorate that are under threat of being flooded out in a once-in-50-years flood. We have come so close to that this year and in other years. The project also covers infrastructure such as Adelaide Airport. You can imagine the projections of a once-in-50-years or a once-in-100-years flood. What will take place if this project does not go ahead? I acknowledge the shadow finance minister who, at the time, came to the electorate and met with the councils. He was good enough to ensure that had we formed government we would have put $44 million into the plan.
Another project was the Thebarton Oval—$6.6.million so that amateur football clubs could have a decent headquarters in the western suburbs. At the time, the Leader of the Opposition announced the extended tramline of $500 million that would have created over 2,000 jobs. It would have gone through the centre of my electorate, to the airport and down to Henley Beach. So it would not only have been a great infrastructure project but also have created 2,000 jobs. These are the things that we did while we were in government: infrastructure that gave facilities to neighbourhoods all around Australia but also created jobs.
I would also like to take this opportunity to undertake to hold the government to account on each and every one of the many promises that the Liberal government made in relation to Hindmarsh during the campaign. And this is important, because the federal coalition government have a history of saying one thing and then doing another after the election. We all remember the promises that were made on the eve of the 2013 election about the submarines being built in South Australia. It took the community of South Australia, the state government of South Australia and the federal members on the Labor side to take the government screaming and kicking, only when their jobs were at stake, to agree to it. So we remember this.
I felt that there was a lot of unfinished business for me in 2013, and there is still so much that I want to do—so much unfinished business. I now have that opportunity to complete some of those things that I started. As I said, one example is to continue fighting for the Adelaide Airport curfew, and I want to ensure that that is upheld and not slowly eroded away. The people of Hindmarsh around the airport need sufficient protection from damaging noise pollution, and this is something I fought for very hard, not only when I was in this place but also as a community resident association chair of the Adelaide Airport Action Group, way before I was even a candidate. Here is another example: on the eve of the 2013 election, there seemed to be bipartisan support by both parties that the curfew would remain, and we had promises from the Liberal candidate and from the Liberal opposition undertaking to maintain the curfew. Unfortunately, within months of coming to power—I think it was in 2013, November or December—the Abbott coalition then did a backflip, allowing aircraft to come in before 6 am and jets to land outside the hours of curfew. This was less than two months after they put leaflets out in the entire electorate promising that this would not happen. In all honesty, I believe that the people who live around the airport and under the flight path, as I have done my entire life, deserve a little more respect than that. The airport curfew remains one of the most important issues for those people who live around there.
Such backflips, however, soon became an all-too-common occurrence within this government from 2013 to 2016. On the eve of the 2013 federal election, the then opposition leader promised no cuts to education, no cuts to health and no changes to the pension and penalty rates. It did not take long for the government to impose an $80 billion cut to health and education spending over the next decade. They introduced legislation regarding penalty rates that would leave workers worse off, undermining their hard-fought rights. They undertook a massive witch hunt under the guise of a royal commission into unions that was nothing more than the opportunity to bash unions and weaken workers' rights. Yet, when we asked them to conduct a royal commission into the banks, they refused to. Despite the fact that they have been refusing continuously, we see today that they have come up with some furphy that they will look into an inquiry or something. We need a royal commission into the banks, and we need it now.
In the three years since not being returned, I had the honour and privilege of working for the Australian Services Union, where I was involved in the negotiations for the 5,000 redundancies of Qantas workers. What I hear from the other side and what I saw were two very different things. I cannot praise the union movement and the workers that it represents enough for the respectful way they ensure that workers are given a fair go and for the many, many young people that I met in the union movement over the last three years—brilliant young lawyers that could go off and earn three or four times the amount that they earn, yet are determined because they want to represent workers and do the best they can to make sure that they give them a better quality of life. That is what workers deserve. So what I hear and what I saw were very different. In addition, the coalition government announced that the pension age would rise to 70 by 2035—another broken promise when they said pensions would not be changed—and that the age and disability pensions will fall behind wages growth from 2017.
And, of course, there were the threats to Medicare. Regardless of what I have heard over yesterday and today, I know that Medicare was the most important issue in my electorate. This was not a furphy. What we had was a period of three years where three times there was an attempt through the budget to bring in a co-payment. It failed, planting the seed into people's minds that there is something wrong with this government when it comes to Medicare. It failed, and then the government went the backdoor way by freezing the indexation. And this is the message that people knew out there. So, despite anything that we hear about this not being true and how there were lies, there was action that this government took to water down Medicare and make sure it was made weaker than it currently is. So the message from my electorate was clear: do not meddle with Medicare. It was loud and clear. People do not want our Medicare system undermined.
I am determined to fight against this sort of injustice, because these measures hurt people and undermine the very fabric of our society. Many of these people—our elderly—have fought in wars. They have paid their taxes. They have protected our country. They have worked very hard. They do not deserve to be punished. And we will not have it on this side. In Hindmarsh we have a rapidly ageing population who rely more and more on these services. They deserve to be represented and they deserve to have advocates on their side.
Many of my constituents are migrants who settled in the electorate of Hindmarsh many years ago. I am talking about our wonderful Italian and Greek communities, who all came out here as young men and women in their late teens or early 20s and who are now rapidly ageing, at a rapid pace. These people worked in some of the lowest paid jobs, under horrendous conditions. They struggled with limited English and, at the time, limited support. They did it because they wanted to provide a better life for their children, who today you will find in every field, including politics, business, science and research. They left their homes and chose to make a new home in Australia to have the ability to dream—but not just to dream but to fulfil those dreams. This includes people like my parents, who came here in the early fifties.
I would like to take a moment to say a few words in my parents' native Greek, if you allow me. I have spoken to Hansard, who will have the translation.
Thelon a po ena megalo efharisto, ap ta vathi tis kardias mou stin elliniki parukias tis ethras mou Hindmarsh yia tin ipostrixi pou mou ehaite dixi.
Ohi monoyia tin ipostrixi alla pio simantika sas sinhero yia osa ehete apohtisi kai prosferi san metanastes stin kainouria patrida sas.
Ithela nap o afta ta liga logia stin elliniki ylosa na timiso olous tous ellines tis australias kai tin thikimou klironomia. Thank you for allowing me that.
I don't know what I have allowed, Steve!
The translation will be given to Hansard.
The translation read as follows—
I wish to thank from the bottom of my heart the Greek community and residents of Hindmarsh for the support they have shown me.
Not only for their support, but more importantly, l wish to congratulate and acknowledge everything they have achieved and offered as migrants to their new country, Australia.
I wanted to say these few words in the Greek language to acknowledge the Greeks' contribution to Australia, and my own cultural heritage.
I have 200 languages spoken within my electorate. I wish I could speak in each and every one of them. Unfortunately, I cannot. I will have to stick to Greek and English.
We also have a growing community of Indians, Chinese, Africans, Middle Easterns, just to name a few who are the new, emerging communities in my electorate. Diversity is a reality in Hindmarsh as it is in many electorates around the country. I want to be able to ensure that people celebrate their diversity, their cultural linguistics and their religious ways.
To win an election takes a lot of people to assist, and I have many, many people to thank: David Di Troia from UV; David Gray; Joe Szakacks, who is here in the gallery today; my grandkids as well, who are crying, but I will get on to them; Joseph Scales and Abbie Spencer from the ASU, who were absolutely brilliant; Linda White, the ASU national assistant secretary; Liz Temple from the CPSU; Jamie Newlan; Michael O'Connor; the SDA; CEPU; AMWU; MUA; CWU and CFMEU. Of course there are many volunteers: Abbie Spencer and Cheyne Rich, who were my campaign coordinator and campaign manager—I thank them for the hard work that they did on my campaign; Emily Gore; Angas Oehme; Sam Davies; Pam Nadar; Steven Choung; Peter Bijork; John Trainer, who has always been there supporting me as a former speaker of South Australia in the House and is now the Mayor of West Torrens; Frank Violi, from the Italian pensioners; George Peters, who is the president of the St George Greek Orthodox Community; Depak Bhardwaj and his family from the Indian community; Reggie Martin; Steven May; the Australian Labor Party sub-branch; the Hindmarsh FEC office bearers and members; Tim Looker, president of the Hindmarsh FEC; PLUS; Young Left; AYL. I also thank Nick Bolkus, who gave me my first opportunity in parliament; Premier Jay Weatherill; Paul Caicia; Mick Atkinson; Steph Key; Tom Koutsantonis and his wonderful staff including Zoi Papafilopoulis and Betty Livaditis; Susan Close; Stephen Mullighan; and Annabel Digance. And, of course, my parliamentary colleagues here in this place: Bill Shorten, Penny Wong, Mark Butler, Anne McEwen, Nick Champion, Brendan O'Connor, Maria Vamvakinou and everyone else that assisted.
This would not have been possible without the love and support of my family who are all here today. When I left this place in 2013 I had one grandchild. I now have three and I am very proud of them. To Wendy; my boys, George and Alex; their partners, Irene and Eleni; to my grandchildren, Stathi—who I give a big wave to—Mia and Lia: I thank them for what I have put them through over the years, especially Wendy. No-one else would put up with what I have put them through to campaign and to achieve my goals and the things that have got me here, so thank you from the bottom of my heart. There is nothing more important than family, and you quickly realise that when you are not in this place. It is the family that we all turn to. Thank you.
The question is that the address be agreed to, but just before I call the member for Hughes, I remind the House that this is not the member's first speech and he is fair game under the standing orders!
I was going to thank you, Deputy Speaker, but with that prelude I am not sure if I actually should! But it is a great honour and privilege to be back here for my third term as the member for Hughes. My first duty is to thank the electors of Hughes in southern Sydney and in the areas of south-eastern Liverpool for their trust in me and for giving me the great privilege of coming back again. I would especially like to thank the electors of the suburbs of Kirrawee, Como, Jannali, Oyster Bay, Kareela, Bundeena, Maianbar, Grays Point, Heathcote and Heathcote East that came into the electorate of Hughes in the redistribution.
The very first job, the very first obligation, that we have here as members of this parliament is to make sure that we rein in government spending. It is completely unacceptable that over the next 12 months we have to borrow $100 million every day just to balance the books. We currently have a GDP growth at over three per cent. We have unemployment—yes it is too high, and we are going to get it down lower—with a five in front of it. Under these economic circumstances it is unconscionable for us to continue to borrow $100 million every single day. It is not that we are just doing it this year. We have done that every year since 2007. The first cost to the budget is our interest bill. This year the interest bill that must be paid is $16 billion. The fastest growing area of government expenditure is not our health system, our schools, our roads or our help for kids with disabilities. The fastest growing area of government expenditure that we have is interest payments on government debt. I look around at the things that we desperately need to do and I think about that $16 billion that just goes to pay the interest—the other things that we could do in this country.
We must arrest the rate of growth in government spending and we must go back to living within our means. If we continue to borrow, all we are doing is stealing from future generations. We are going to give them an inheritance of higher levels of taxation and less government services because we in this parliament refused to make the hard decisions. And there will be some hard decisions that will need to be made. I hope that the members of the opposition will work with us on those decisions, rather than, as we saw in the last parliament, going on and whinging and whining, talking about cuts and cruel cuts. We cannot continue on like that at the rate we are going.
One of the things I found during the election campaign, during the debates I had with some of my opponents, was that one of the great misunderstandings or misconceptions of those on the other side, the thing they failed to grasp is that the size of our nation's economic pie is not fixed. We in government cannot create jobs. All we can do is set the conditions in the economy that allow the private sector to get out there, to create wealth and to grow the size of the economic pie. If we do that, if we grow the size of the economic pie, then it means we have more to put in social welfare. It means we have more for schools. It means we have more for hospitals. It means we have more for aged care. So that should our other priority—to grow the size of the economic pie.
We often say we need innovation, but how do we get innovation? The simple way to get innovation is to set the economic circumstances so that people in the private sector, in every line of business that they are in, can take risks and experiment—can experiment with new ideas, with new methods of production, new methods of distribution. We know that most of those new ideas will not succeed, but it is those small numbers that do succeed, it is that small fraction of risks and experimentation that do succeed, that drive the economy. That is what gets the growth going, that is what creates wealth in this economy. That is why I was so supportive of the policy we had to lower the rate of corporate tax.
At first blush, and this is what the Labor Party ran on during the election, if you lower the rate of corporate tax it looks like you are simply giving a tax break to big business. We heard that during the campaign. The opposition leader, when he was running around the country, said this was a $50 billion tax break for big business. But look at our nation's history and at what has happened when we have lowered the rate of corporate tax over the last two decades. If we go back to 1987, the corporate tax rate in this country was 49 per cent. We have gradually lowered that over the years, down to 30 per cent. So you would think that if we have gone from 49 per cent to 30 per cent—if you follow the opposition's logic, we have given up at least 50 per cent or more of the taxation revenue of this nation. But if you look at the numbers, this is what has actually happened: almost every single time that we have lowered the rate of tax we have not got less revenue, we have got more. And we have got more not only in gross terms, but also as a percentage of GDP.
In fact, look at the numbers. In 1986-87, company tax, as a rate of GDP in this country, was 2.4 per cent. It was raising $6.7 billion. If we fast forward to 2007-08, as a percentage of GDP—even though we had lowered it from 49 per cent down to 30 per cent in that big tax cut—we ended up doubling the rate of company tax that we achieved. We went from 2.4 to 5½ per cent of GDP as company tax being paid into the Treasury. In actual dollar terms, it was a 1,000 per cent increase, a tenfold increase—that is, in 1986-87 it was $6.7 billion of corporate tax that we received when the tax rate was 49 per cent; in 2007-08, it was $64.7 billion.
This is not a prediction of the future, but I believe that if we lower the rate of company tax, as we set out during the election campaign, it will not cost the budget a single cent. If history holds and we lower that rate of corporate tax—we encourage investment, we encourage risk-taking, we encourage experimentation in the economy—then we will get a bigger economic pie and we will have more for social welfare, we will have more for hospitals, we will have more for aged care. We will be able to do all of the things that count as a government.
Saying that, one of the things that was very disappointing during the election campaign was the Medicare scare campaign. The lie—I know that may be an unparliamentary word, but it was a lie to say that the government was going to privatise Medicare. It is not so bad that it was a lie—that is the cut and thrust of election campaigns: one side says one thing, the other side counters it with something else and people make up their own mind—but what was particularly objectionable about the Medicare privatisation lie was the use of false documents through texts on people's mobile phones. This is something that our electoral laws simply have not caught up with. To send a text message to someone's phone that creates the perception that it has come from some official government source, that should be fraud. That should not be permitted in our democracy. And to see members of the Labor Party come into this chamber today and to laugh about it—'Ha, ha, ha. We've tricked you; we've tricked the public. We conned them. We hoodwinked them. We got them to change their vote because we sent out false and fraudulent documents'—is a black spot on our democracy. I hope, during the course of this parliament—this has happened, it is an event in the past. But for the sake of our democracy, we cannot allow a repeat of it. Otherwise, at the next election, what is to prevent the major parties or the minor parties from sending out millions of text messages that have at the top 'Centrelink' and creating the perception that people's Centrelink benefits would be cut, or a message from the immigration department that says your visa will be cut if you vote in a certain way or a message from the taxation department that says your taxes will be cut if you vote in a certain way? We must say this was a black mark on our democracy and we need to fix our electoral system to ensure that, if any political party is sending out a text message, it is absolutely crystal clear that it is not being sent from some official source.
How we would deal with same-sex marriage was another issue during the election campaign. We went to the election campaign with a clear and concise policy that if the coalition was successful, if we were returned to the government benches, we would hold a plebiscite and give every person in Australia a say. The opposition had another policy. They wanted to have the parliament vote on it. Those were the policies that were taken to the election. The opposition lost the election. The Labor Party and the Greens lost the election. The coalition have been returned to the government benches albeit by a small minority. If election commitments mean anything in this country, it is incumbent upon the opposition not to block the plebiscite in the Senate. To do so would say to people that the opposition are snubbing their noses at election results and election commitments. I hope that in the coming weeks the Labor Party will see sense. If they really want to have same-sex marriage as quickly as we can, let the coalition put to the people the policy that was voted on at the election. Let us do it. Let us have that plebiscite. Let us have that vote. Let the Australian people have their say on this issue.
Another issue I would like to bring up is 18C. I know it is controversial. The Prime Minister said today that this government does not have any intention to change 18C. Perhaps one of the reasons is that the numbers in the Senate make it clear that it would be almost impossible to get a change through. The member for Watson, in question time today—and I am paraphrasing him—asked: 'With these changes, what words are you trying to allow to be said that cannot be said now?' The question was ruled out of order. But I will give him the answer: it is what the student from the Queensland University of Technology said. I will read it to you.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton may be interested to tell me whether he thinks this is acceptable in our society. This is what the young student said: 'Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT is stopping segregation with segregation.' Do you think speech like that should be allowed in this country, or do you think government censorship should clamp down and that poor kid should be dragged through the courts facing a $250,000 fine? Do you support that? I am interested to know whether you support it—a simple yes or no. Do you support that outcome—that someone can be dragged through the courts of this country for merely saying that? We should be able to have a debate in this country about that issue. The issue is: should we have segregated rooms in our universities? Should the colour of your skin or your racial background determine whether you can go into a room or not? I think not. This is a terrible idea. It is against the interests of integration, harmony and racial tolerance to have separate rooms. That should be debated, but the effect of 18C is actually to stop that from being debated. And to have university kids being shaken down—
Ms Butler interjecting—
I hear the member over there interject 'Rubbish!' Do you understand? Have you read the circumstances of this case? Do you know what happened to these kids? Do you actually support that? I am interested to know. Are you happy to see a student who has merely said these words being dragged before the courts and sued for $250,000? Is that what you are defending? You are defending it. What a sad example we have! It is typical of the Labor Party. They do not trust Australians with free speech.
Brendan O'Neill is not from the political right. In an article he wrote in The Australian the other week, he argued that supporting 18C is the very opposite of anti-racism. He said:
The truth is anti-racists should be at the front of the fight against 18C—for the simple reason that if you want to defeat racism, as I do, then you must insist racists have full freedom of speech so we can see and know their ideology, and confront it before the public. Leftie rads who love 18C’s suppression of racist speech are failing in their first duty as anti-racists: to shine a light on racism and do battle with it in the full glare of public life.
Those of us who support changes to 18C do so because we want to defeat racism. We want to bring it out in the open. We believe free speech is the best antidote we have to defeat racist sentiments. I hope the Labor Party have a rethink on this rather than going around with a scare campaign saying Australians are ready to attack other Australians if we make any changes to 18C. I believe Australians are better than that. I believe we can have these debates with good sense and respect for each other. I believe that is better for the Australian public.
Another issue I would like to raise in the remaining time is the nonsense argument about a bank royal commission. A royal commission will achieve zero, apart from becoming a lawyers' picnic. There are issues that we can address in this parliament—some of the problems we have in our banking sector—without having a royal commission. One of them is acting on the penalty fee issue after the recent High Court case. The High Court case has basically found that late payments for credit cards of $35 are not a penalty, and are lawful. I believe that the High Court, in that 4-1 split decision, extended the law beyond where the parliament would want to be. In this parliament we can act, and we can set in legislation what penalty terms actually are, in relation to late payment of bank fees. I believe the High Court has extended that far too often in the bank's favour. The court said in that particular case that, for someone that was running a business, a $35 late payment fee on the credit card was not in terrorem, or in fear. But for a single mother or an aged pensioner with a credit card limit of a couple of hundred dollars that may have a $20 monthly payment fee, who could not make that payment fee because they had some illness in the family or some other emergency, a $35 late payment fee is in terrorem. That is something this parliament should deal with.
Another issue I would like to raise is the Moorebank Intermodal, in my electorate—something that I have spoken about many a time in this parliament, particularly about how it is a white elephant. It is a waste of a very valuable piece of land, a waste of a resource, and it is a cost to the taxpayer of several hundred million dollars because of this failed plan. For a while, I did not think I had much support in this. But just a few weeks ago, one of the proponents of the Moorebank Intermodal, the Aurizon company, have dumped their shares—I think they agree with me. They sold out. They could see that the writing was on the wall that this project was not going to be a goer. And I would hope that the other shareholders look at the Aurizon decision and see that this project is just not going to be a goer, and it is going to cost the taxpayer money. If we needed Intermodal in Sydney to distribute goods, the ideal place for it would be either out at Eastern Creek or at Badgerys Creek airport. Let's use the savings that we could have at Moorebank, and put that into the infrastructure to get Badgerys Creek, with all the transport links up and running.
Another other issue that I have some concerns about, and one of our particular policies, is the cigarette tax. I would like to precede this by saying that I am a fanatical anti-smoker. I would like to see cigarette consumption in this nation at zero. I would like to see those large cigarette companies run out of town, and their share price not worth the paper that it is written on. But I am a realist, and my great concern is that if we raise the retail price in this country—and this is a bipartisan policy—to $40 for a packet of cigarettes when the wholesale price of lawfully made cigarettes throughout Asia is around one dollar, we risk turbocharging the black market, and all the criminal activity that goes along with it. So I am pleased to see in the coalition's policy that we have put an extra $7 million into resourcing our policing agencies on this black market. But I fear that that may not be enough, and I fear that we may see an increased amount of crime because of that policy. It was only last week that we saw a kidnapping and stabbing of a tobacco executive, related to that issue.
The other thing that I am proud that the coalition government did during the election campaign was some of the solar grants that we were able to give. I was pleased that the solar grants I was able to allocate went to places that were not connected to the grid. One of those was a grant to Garie Surf Lifesaving Club. For those that do not know it, Garie Beach is in the Royal National Park south of Sydney—one of the most spectacular, naturally beautiful pieces of real estate that you would ever want to see, with a magnificent surf club, a magnificent facility. And I am very pleased that the grant that we were able to give them—especially as they are not connected to the electricity grid—will enable them to increase the facilities in their particular area. But, saying that, I must admit that I have some concerns with some of the other subsidies that we have been giving to the solar industry and how they are working out, and the cost to the economy. There is a Grattan report titled Sundown Sunrise: How Australia can finally get solar power right. In the overview it says:
… the cost of solar PV take-up has outweighed the benefits by almost $10 billion.
By the time the subsidies finally run out, households and businesses that have not installed solar PV will have spent more than $14 billion subsidising households that have. Australia could have reduced emissions for much less money. Governments have created a policy mess that should never be repeated.
Whatever we are doing with the issue of climate change, it is our obligation to ensure that that does not push up electricity prices in this country. We have already seen a very, very substantial increase in electricity prices over the last decade, which has caused enormous harm to many families. We have seen record numbers of families have their electricity cut off. We have seen businesses relocate their manufacturing to overseas because of the high cost of power in this country. Whatever we do, there should be a full cost-benefit analysis, and we make sure—
Thank you, Speaker. May I congratulate you on your election to the role and echo some of the comments made by other people. Whilst I am familiar with the 94(a) rulings that you hand out, I would also attest to the fact that you are always fair and considered. I look forward to working with you and maybe not exercising that rule as much this term.
Before I lived in Moorooka, where I currently live, I used to live in Tarragindi in Salkeld Street and my drinking hole was the Tarragindi Bowls Club. Now the residents of the tin-and-timber suburb of Tarragindi are very concerned about a development proposal for this bowls club.
The Tarragindi Bowls Club was established in 1944. The main site was purchased from the owner, Albert Oates, for $150 with an additional strip of land to allow access to Andrew Avenue for $100. The purchase was sponsored by Mr Matthews of Matthews Real Estate. Both the bowls club and Matthews Real Estate are still in operation some 72 years later!
The Tarragindi Bowls Club is part of a wonderful suburban neighbourhood—lots of Queenslanders; lots of character. It is a suburb that families have chosen to live in for the leafy streets, parklands and amenities. The people who live in suburbs like Tarragindi love living there because of the very character that you can see when driving through the streets. If they wanted to live in a high-density area with units, they would have chosen different suburbs closer to the city, perhaps, or around a transport node.
People like Deb, who hosted me for dinner in Tarragindi in the lead-up to the election, on that night at that dinner party the club was the hot topic for the people of Tarragindi. So it has come as a great shock to Tarragindi residents that there is a proposal lodged with the Brisbane City Council to redevelop the site of the Tarragindi Bowls Club to provide accommodation for, perhaps, older Australians over 55.
Providing suitable accommodation for older Australians is, obviously, a worthwhile aim. However, the accommodation needs to be suitable and it needs to be appropriate and appropriate for the residents of the area. Tarragindi is a tin-and-timber suburb of old Queenslanders. The apartment complex proposed to be built on the site of the Tarragindi Bowls Club is a six-storey-high building with 95 apartments. It is proposed to be built on land that is currently zoned for sports and recreation in an area of low-to-medium-density housing. This does not fit that plan. It will forever change the character of Tarragindi.
The residents of Tarragindi saw the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. The LNP lord mayor announced that he would slash development infrastructure charges for aged-care accommodation by a third and that he would consider in medium- and high-density locations, which is not Tarragindi, an additional two storeys allowed for developments providing aged-care accommodation, which is also not the proposal, and would consider proposals for aged-care accommodation in privately owned sports and recreation zones—all proposals that seem to be geared for Tarragindi as far as I am concerned.
These changes will make it a very attractive proposition for developers to build aged-care accommodation and will encourage these developers through their hip pockets to provide a boost in the availability of aged-care accommodation. With an ageing population, I understand that concern, and it is a good idea to let people age in their residences in their suburbs, but I am worried that the local council is actually going to be taking stuff out of the pockets of developers. The council's concern should also be the welfare of those that live in the area.
The Brisbane City Council elections were held in March this year, and Liberal-National Party Councillor Krista Adams said that she opposed the redevelopment of the Tarragindi Bowls Club. However, after the election, in a recent letter to residents, Councillor Adams now says she does 'not support the application in current form'. Councillor Adams was the chair of the former Brisbane Lord Mayor's Taskforce into Retirement and Aged Care in 2009-10. That task force made some recommendations. The residents of Tarragindi supported Councillor Adams when they voted in the election. Now she needs to support her residents. The reality is that a councillor decides whether or not a project goes ahead. If she is opposed to it, it will halt. In its current form a six-storey-high monstrosity in this suburb of tin and timber will destroy the character of the area and there are significant parking concerns because it will not be one car per unit. Some of the units are going to have three bedrooms, and there will be more cars spilling out onto the street. It is not an appropriate development for the suburb of Tarragindi. I ask Councillor Krista Adams to speak up for her residents. (Time expired)
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker, and congratulations on your re-election. I have no doubt that your contribution will only continue to build on the outstanding job you have done to date.
I rise tonight to formally put on the record my congratulations to the Cairns Hockey Association and its innovative Aspire to be Deadly program, which has made the shortlist for a prestigious international award. Aspire to be Deadly aims to give women and young girls an opportunity to complete and advance their education, to create real pathways for training and employment and to be visible so they themselves can become role models for other Indigenous women and young girls. It is also about involving them in interactive training and workshops so they learn how to better communicate key messages relating to health, safety and wellbeing in support of community participation sports programs.
Last week, Cairns Hockey received news that the aspire program is one of 42 finalists selected from over 250 international entries vying for a coveted Beyond Sport Award. These awards promote, support and reward the best projects across the globe that are using sport for positive social change. Cairns Hockey Association is one of four finalists competing to win the sport federation or governing body of the year award. They are up against the European Club Association's 90 Minutes for Hope, the USA's Major League Baseball Play Ball, and Australia's National Rugby League's School to Work Program. The winners will be announced at the awards presentation on 19 October at the Beyond Sport summit in London. I am absolutely thrilled that Aspire and Cairns Hockey have received this international recognition. I would like particularly to highlight the efforts of the President of Cairns Hockey, Scott Brown; the operations manager, Julie McNeil; and program coordinators Wes Ferns and Jess Fatnowna.
This award clearly shows that in Cairns we have the innovative thinking, cultural understanding, educational expertise and real dedication to lead the world in improving opportunities for Indigenous people. According to Julie, it is difficult to convey the benefits the program delivers because in many instances it is carried out in remote locations. As an example, last Friday over 50 young people travelled by ferry, bus and charter flight from across the Torres Strait to take part in a competition of a hockey-like game called Migi Kokan. This carnival was the result of a partnership between Cairns Hockey's Aspire program, Tagai State College and the communities of the Torres Strait Islands. In 10 days, Cairns Hockey will again be making history by leading an under-11 tour of 20 students to Karumba in south-western Cape York.
The gulf region is already seeing the interest in hockey increase because of this program, and more teams than ever before have nominated because of Cairns making the trip. Other positive spin-offs include students managing to attain 90 per cent attendance levels and good behaviour, making them eligible to participate. As Julie says, this is where hockey can and does make a real difference.
I am pleased that the coalition government has acknowledged the value and potential of this program by providing funding for the pilot through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. As a long-time supporter of Cairns Hockey and a proud patron of the Far North Queensland Rubies, the Indigenous young ladies' hockey team, and Blaze, the Indigenous men's team, I certainly will do whatever I can to make sure this support continues.
In the long term, Cairns Hockey aims to run the program in more than 40 Indigenous communities in Far North Queensland and far north-west Queensland, reaching 40,000 participants over three years. It is also seeking to build training facilities and residential opportunities specifically for Indigenous young women, supporting training, education and employment outcomes, starting in 2017. We have already seen the success of a similar model in Cairns, with AFL Cape York House focusing on Indigenous boys through the fantastic efforts of Rick Hanlon and his team.
Cairns Hockey is hoping to send a delegation to London to attend the Beyond Sport Awards. This is a fantastic opportunity, and I strongly urge any local companies or organisations that are able to provide sponsorship, assistance with flights or funding to contact Cairns Hockey as soon as possible. To Scott, Julie, Wes, Jess and your team: I wish you the very best of luck at the awards ceremony and thank you very much for your commitment to bettering the lives of young Indigenous women in our communities.
I rise tonight to speak once again, at my first opportunity back in the chamber after the election, about the NBN in the electorate of Lalor. I am inspired to do so because last week I got very excited when I received the report Measuring Australia's digital divide on email. I thought: 'This will be a good document. No doubt it will document what is happening in my electorate.' I was incredibly disappointed to find that the digital divide that is described in the report might accurately describe the divide between city and the regions, it might accurately describe lots of things, but it does not describe the digital divide it in the electorate of Lalor.
In Lalor we are in a growth corridor. The city of Wyndham has over 200,000 residents and is growing at the rate of knots. That means it is caught in this digital divide, caught in the marriage between what the NBN was designed to roll out in new stock and the hybrid system that this government is determined to deliver. It is caught where we have new buildings that are waiting for the NBN, some for as long as two years.
This is highlighted to me by residents all the time. Once again this week the local paper ran a story on access to the internet in the city of Wyndham. The story's headline was 'No ports in internet storm', referencing, of course, another of our critical issues, which is that we have people moving into our suburbs—moving into Tarneit, Point Cook, Wyndham Vale, Manor Lakes and Williams Landing—where they have been told there is access to high-speed internet, access to the NBN, only to find that there are not enough ports in those suburbs for them even to access ADSL1. This is highly concerning for the residents moving into the area and for those who have now been waiting for a long time to get access to high-speed internet.
This is compounded by the assumption in our world that people do have this access. There is an assumption by government departments, such as Centrelink, and job agencies, who tell people, 'You just go online and apply for jobs.' Our assumptions about what we are rolling out do not match the lived experience of the residents in my communities; they do not match it at all. I highlight the experience of Christie Downey, who today messaged me on Facebook to say: 'I've been trying for over 18 months to get a broadband connection in my house with absolutely no luck or help from anyone. I have school-aged children that need access to the internet, and I am also trying to study and need it as well. Pocket wi-fi is ridiculously expensive and so is extra data on your mobile. Telstra keeps telling me to wait for the NBN, which could take years.' I repeat that: 'which could take years'.
Terry Konstandalis also commented, when I shared the local newspaper story today, that it is 'just another example where conservative rhetoric is totally at odds with the lived experience'. I bring this to the chamber's attention tonight because it is critical that in this place we understand people's lived experience; that we understand we are creating expectations. We do not have to look far to see that after the census disaster, where the expectation was that across this country people would be able to go online and complete their census. People in Werribee South organised to go to their children's homes in other suburbs because they do not get any internet in Werribee South.
We are fast building this divide, and it is not fair. I will take a moment to think about how we got to this place where we have a divide in suburbs in our metropolitan areas. We do not have to look far to find the Prime Minister, who was responsible for the NBN when he was communications minister. We can now look back and see that the Prime Minister doubled the costs, doubled the rollout time and has dropped us from the 30th-fastest country for internet speeds to the 60th-fastest. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, I also would like to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker, especially as you are my neighbour in La Trobe. It is a great honour to have you in that seat.
Imagine you are at home sleeping when at 4 am you hear a crash in your house. You wake up and are not sure whether it is a dream or reality. Your next thought is: where are the children? Then you realise that this is not a dream but that someone is actually in your house. You are upstairs and your children are downstairs. This happened to a resident of La Trobe. To protect her identity, let's call her Ellen. Ellen lives in a double-storey home in Beaconsfield and sleeps upstairs with her husband, while her four children sleep downstairs.
On 2 June 2016, at 4am, Ellen was woken by a very loud bang. Her instinct was to run quickly downstairs, where she heard voices and laughing. She then ran to the front door to see someone running away from her house and two parked cars on the street. A flashlight was shone in her face, making it difficult for her to see. The cars stayed for around two minutes; they did not take off straight away. Her husband ran downstairs and called 000. By this stage her children were also awake from the noise and standing with Ellen and her husband. The two cars then drove off and one of the occupants in one of the vehicle screamed out, 'Apex gang'. Their front door had been kicked in and was now completed broken, as were the locks and the door handles. When the family came back inside they discovered that their car keys had been stolen—they own a luxury car.
The thieves had been unsuccessful in stealing the car because the family had woken up and interrupted them. Police took statements and they basically thought that would be the end of the incident; however, it wasn't. The thieves returned two days later, again at 4am. This time a neighbour was alerted and chased them down the road. The police got involved and caught one of the offenders, who had Ellen's car keys in his pocket. It has been reported to Ellen by the police that he was a 15-year-old member of the Apex gang. Sadly, this is not a one-off incident. I have spoken to a number of families in La Trobe where this has occurred.
In Victoria there have been many carjackings. When I was police officer these were very rare events but now they are becoming very common. A state Labor government has let gangs get out of control in Victoria. We have to stand up and do something about this issue. This is why I suggested that we look at immigration issues when it comes to deportation of people on visas. At the moment, people can only be deported if they commit a sexual crime against a child or serve a term of imprisonment for one year. This needs to be looked at, especially for gang related crime. The Apex gang now has up to 400 members, from what I hear. Eighty per cent of them are juveniles, I do admit that, but they are committing very serious crimes.
The National Anti-Gangs Squad, a joint task force of the Federal Police and state police, needs to get involved and start investigating and targeting this gang. The policy is based on what occurs in the UK and the US. I know a lot about the policy because in a previous role I put the policy together. The reason why the National Anti-Gangs Squad is required is that street gangs, as they are known—in actual fact the crimes that they are committing are a lot worse than those of street gangs—can cause so much community fear.
There is a view that this is a state government responsibility—I acknowledge that. I have spoken to people like Ellen and others in my electorate who are living in fear. As a former police officer and now as a member of parliament I believe that we have a duty to protect them. If the state government is failing—guess what?—that is the time when the federal government can get involved and assist. It is what needs to occur, because the situation with the Apex gang will only get worse, especially when its members become adults, enter Barwon prison and are teamed up with extremists. That is what would happen and that is my great concern. It is time to act and act now.
It is an honour to be able speak on behalf of the people of Blair this evening. This is my fourth term, and I will not take the people of Ipswich and the Somerset region for granted—I never have and I never will. I was elected in 2007 on a platform of fixing the Ipswich Motorway after years and years of inactivity, inertia and idleness by the Howard coalition government in relation to the motorway. The then federal Labor government fixed the Ipswich Motorway from Dinmore to Darra —100,000 vehicles a day travel between Ipswich and Brisbane. This has been a blessing for the people of the region and good for economic growth and development.
But the coalition government under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, and the current Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, have failed to fix the last section of the Ipswich Motorway—that is, the section from Darra to Rocklea. They promised to do so in the 2013 election, with the same candidate who ran against me at the 2016 election. We made a fairly early commitment that we would do it, in fact, we put money into kick-starting the Ipswich motorway from Darra to Rocklea in our last budget in May 2013. Nothing was done for three years by the coalition government.
Just before the 2016 election, after Labor had re-affirmed its commitment, the coalition government under the current Prime Minister finally said, 'We might do this.' Why is this important? It is important because 85,000 vehicles, including 12,000 trucks, go through that section every day. It is not in my electorate. It is actually mostly in the electorate of the member for Moreton, with a little bit in the electorate of the member for Oxley. Many of those 85,000 vehicles are being driven by people from or carry passengers from the electorate of Blair. It is critical for the economic development of the whole region.
The government say that they will do it, and we have to take them on their word. The Palaszczuk Labor government deserves a lot of credit because it has agreed on a fifty-fifty split. The construction of this section of the Ipswich Motorway I am told will start in early 2017 and there will be 470 jobs created as a result. It will be a safer, quicker journey for motorists and it will improve national and local freight movements. I want to make it clear that the government had better do what it said it would or the people in the western corridor will hold them to account for that.
Blair also boasts the RAAF base at Amberley. It is home to 5,500 defence personnel and a $1 billion upgrade. It supports a burgeoning aerospace industry. Down the road a few kilometres is the Willowbank motorsport precinct, including the Queensland Raceway and the Willowbank Raceway. Beyond that is the Mount Walker quarry development, which was approved by the Scenic Rim Regional Council earlier this year. Sadly, in this growth area the Cunningham Highway between Yamanto and Ebenezer Creek at Willowbank is a notorious blackspot. Earlier this month five people were injured in a horrific crash between a car and a truck at the Willowbank Interchange and the highway was shut for three hours.
Chad Hayes is a tow truck driver from Willowbank and a member of the Willowbank action group. If you want to get someone agitated, talk about the Willowbank Interchange to the Willowbank action group. Following the accident, Chad told the publication Big Rigs that 'using the intersection was like playing B-double roulette'. The Mount Walker quarry is expected to add a further 70 to 80 B-doubles a day along this stretch of road. Last year TheQueensland Times referred to it as Ipswich's 'highway to hell'. It is the Ipswich region's No. 1 crash zone. It is used by 17,000 vehicles a day, including 2,500 heavy vehicles, and experiences heavy congestion at the turn-off from the highway to the RAAF base at Amberley. Locals know that it is a problem between 5 am and 7 am and in the evening after work.
The Queensland government has released a concept plan and in addition to that has developed a business case for an upgrade costing $345 million. It has been submitted as a priority, shovel-ready project to Infrastructure Australia, seeking the usual 80-20 federal-state split. I call on the Turnbull coalition government to fund this, not to be a roadblock as they have on the Ipswich Motorway but to support the region and to support the RAAF base at Amberley in the upgrade. The Nationals and the Liberals in this place do not agitate for better roads in the regions—they simply do not. I call on the government to do the right thing—to save lives, to improve safety and to get the regions moving, particularly the Ipswich region around Willowbank.
Mr Speaker, I add my voice to the many accolades that you have received over the last few days—well deserved. I rise to discuss the government's ongoing review of working holiday visas 417 and 462, a process that is being very closely watched within my electorate of O'Connor. Horticulturalists, farmers, tourism operators and small businesses in O'Connor are concerned about the future supply of seasonal labour, which is a core component of their business model, and are looking to the government to provide some clarity.
In 2011 the previous government raised the tax-free threshold to $18,200. The effect of this tax-free threshold is that an overseas visa holder working in Australia can access services provided by the taxpayer but not pay a cent of tax on their first $18,200. A visitor arriving in January, for example, could earn $18,200 to the end of June and then as the new financial year begins earn another $18,200 without paying a cent in tax.
Existing tax laws stipulate that anyone who is not an Australian resident for tax purposes is required to pay a flat tax rate of 32.5c in the dollar. Working holiday makers fall into this category. Visitors with a 417 or 462 visa can stay in Australia for up to 12 months, they are eligible to work for up to six months with a single employer and they can study for up to four months.
It is important that we acknowledge the critical role overseas workers play in regional Australia. My electorate is a perfect example. Some industries in O'Connor cannot attract workers locally and they rely on backpackers to meet seasonal labour demand. Without a steady supply of overseas workers, the viability of many businesses would be threatened. A measure that reduced labour supply and decreased output would be counterproductive.
I attended a forum in Manjimup recently to hear from stakeholders in O'Connor. The consensus from those who spoke—some of whom run very large operations and employ up to 200 backpackers during peak periods—was that some taxation on working holiday makers was fair. A flat rate of 32.5c in the dollar from the first dollar, however, was unanimously seen as a deterrent for overseas workers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the proposed measure is already having an effect on labour supply.
Industry representatives also raised the issue of paying superannuation on behalf of working tourists. Employers are required to establish a super account and make contributions over the backpacker's tenure. However, those funds are simply released to the visa holder once they leave the country. It is all but guaranteed that that money will be spent outside Australia, with no local benefit.
In response to the community's concerns and the varying need for seasonal labour in different parts of the country, the government has announced the working holiday maker visa review. A comprehensive and rigorous review is an appropriate process to undertake and so is the need to ensure that the government legislates and enforces a fair and equitable taxation policy. Industry representatives from O'Connor were adamant their voices be heard on this issue, and the government has invited all stakeholders to comment.
My personal view is that local tax rates from the first dollar earned would be a fair and reasonable impost on working holiday makers. This would bring them in line with Australians in the lowest tax bracket, although Australian residents are eligible for the tax-free threshold and they do not start paying tax until they earn $18,200. This would ensure that backpackers pay a rate that reflects their income, without affording them concessions reserved for low-income residents, while reducing the damaging effect of a 32.5c rate.
I support the 9.5 per cent superannuation contribution for those on working holiday visas being rolled into an employee's aggregate take-home pay, eliminating the administrative burden of employers making super contributions offering no real benefit to either party. The employer would be relieved of the administrative task of establishing the superannuation fund for the backpacker, and the employee would benefit more fully from the 9.5 per cent. The visa holder will pay tax on the 9.5 per cent superannuation contribution as part of their take-home pay. They will, however, have the balance in their pocket and that cash will be available to be spent while they are visiting here.
I also support the broadening of eligibility criteria for visa extensions to more accurately reflect the need for labour in rural Australia. Currently visitors on a working holiday visa can apply for a 12-month extension after their first year if they have worked in regional Australia on a specified list for at least three months during that year. Those backpackers working in tourism or hospitality, however, are not eligible for an extension. Those industries are not included on the list of specified work in Australia. This inequity should be rectified.
Public consultation ends this Friday. I am pleased with the minister's decision to prioritise this part of the review. I encourage stakeholders and industry figures in O'Connor to offer their input. The review will of course upon its completion become a matter for cabinet. I urge the government to carefully consider the need for seasonal labour in rural Australia before implementing any policy changes from 1 January.
It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 20:00