I present report No. 2 of the Selection Committee relating to consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 17 October 2016. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 11 October 2016.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 17 October 2016 as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR WATTS: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes. (Criminal Code Amendment (Private Sexual Material) Bill 2016)
(Notice given 11 October 2016.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989, and for related purposes. (Australian Postal Corporation (Unsolicited Political Communications) Bill 2016)
(Notice given 11 October 2016.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Dairy Produce Act 1986 to establish a Milk Marketing Board, and for related purposes. (Dairy Produce Amendment (Milk Marketing Board) Bill 2016)
(Notice given 31 August 2016.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
4 MR ZIMMERMAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the strong multi-party commitment in Australia to see an end to the death penalty worldwide;
(b) that 10 October was World Day Against the Death Penalty, an important moment to mark our resolve to end capital punishment around the world;
(c) that the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime;
(d) that the death penalty is the ultimate cruel and inhumane punishment and Australia opposes its use in all cases;
(e) that the international trend shows the world is moving away from the death penalty—in 1977 only 16 countries had abolished the death penalty, now 140 nations have abolished capital punishment in law or practice;
(f) that despite this overwhelming trend, 2015 saw more people executed than in any year in the past quarter century, with executions carried out by several of Australia's neighbours and allies; and
(g) that Australia has the opportunity to influence progress towards the worldwide abolition of the death penalty in its relationships with key regional and global partners; and
(2) welcomes the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into Australia's Advocacy for the Abolition of the Death Penalty: A world without the death penalty (May 2016), and looks forward to the Government's response to its recommendations; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) continue to strengthen its efforts to advocate for an end to the death penalty wherever it still occurs;
(b) support civil society efforts to advocate for an end to the death penalty, particularly in retentionist countries; and
(c) encourage other United Nations member states to support a global moratorium on the death penalty at upcoming United Nations General Assembly negotiations on a moratorium resolution.
(Notice given 11 October 2016.)
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Zimmerman—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 MS OWENS: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that 15 to 23 October is National Week of Deaf People, which provides an opportunity for:
(a) deaf people to celebrate their communities and achievements;
(b) awareness of local, state and national communities to be promoted; and
(c) Parliament's current pilot of captioning in the House and Senate to be acknowledged;
(2) notes the rights of deaf people to access Australian Sign Language (AUSLAN) as their first language; and
(3) acknowledges that:
(a) deaf people are a minority both culturally and linguistically; and
(b) acceptance of the need for bilingual education of AUSLAN and English is necessary to promote equality and lifelong learning.
( Notice given 10 October 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Owens—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
6 MR BROADBENT: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that cancer is one of the leading causes of death in Australia, causing 33 per cent of deaths;
(2) further recognises that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month;
(3) congratulates the Government for being committed to cancer research through funding the National Health and Medical Research Council and Cancer Australia, and establishing the Medical Research Future Fund;
(4) welcomes the Government providing $18.5 million to the McGrath Foundation to deliver 57 trained breast care nurses to assist and care for people diagnosed with breast cancer;
(5) further congratulates the Government for delivering savings to taxpayers while ensuring that the latest cancer-fighting medications are on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), available for patients as soon as possible, without fear or favour;
(6) welcomes the addition of new drugs such as Herceptin and Kadcyla within the Government's investment in the PBS; and
(7) further welcomes the large number of approvals for cancer-fighting drugs that this Government has approved for the PBS, worth over $1.9 billion.
(Notice given 11 October 2016.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
Mr Broadbent—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR CHAMPION: To move:
That this House notes that:
(1) on Saturday 15 October 2016 significant monuments and landmarks will be lit red across Australia as part of Light it Red for Dyslexia; and
(2) Light it Red for Dyslexia:
(a) is an initiative to increase dyslexia awareness;
(b) coincides with international World Dyslexia Day; and
(c) is a prelaunch of Dyslexia Empowerment Week in Australia, running from 16 to 22 October 2016.
(Notice given 10 October 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Champion—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MS MARINO: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that 10 to 14 October was Stay Smart Online Week, which saw the Government educate businesses and individuals on the importance of cyber security, including how to protect themselves online;
(2) further recognises that this year's theme of 'Cyber safety from the lounge room to the board room' focuses on the importance of good online security habits at home and at work;
(3) congratulates the Government on launching Stay Smart Online Small Business Guide and Stay Smart Online My Guide for individuals which:
(a) provides:
(i) advice on vital areas of online security including aspects of privacy, passwords, suspicious messages, surfing safely; and
(ii) information on cyber security when accessing online finances and making payments; and
(b) gives advice on security solutions for tablets and mobiles;
(4) welcomes the Government's free Alert Service, which has online safety information and solutions to help people protect themselves online; and
(5) congratulates the Prime Minister on launching the National Cyber Security Strategy which sets out the Government's vision for meeting the dual challenges of advancing and protecting Australia's interests in the digital age.
(Notice given 11 October 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Marino—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MR GILES: To move:
That this House:
(1) condemns the murder of Mrs Jo Cox, Member of Parliament in the House of Commons for the constituency of Batley and Spen, killed in the course of performing her responsibilities to her constituents;
(2) expresses its deepest sympathies to Mrs Cox's family, colleagues, and to all who knew her; and
(3) pays tribute to Mrs Cox's extraordinary contribution to public life.
(Notice given 30 August 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Giles—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MRS WICKS: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the importance of a generous social safety net;
(2) further recognises that it is essential that welfare is targeted to achieve better lifetime outcomes for recipients;
(3) welcomes the release of data that will help the Government to target interventions to Australians who need it most;
(4) congratulates the Government's Try, Test and Learn Fund, with $96.1 million allocated to it which will:
(a) bring together stakeholders, academics, the states and territories and any relevant parties in the non-government sector, to trial new policies and initiatives to help achieve better lifetime outcomes for target cohorts; and
(b) ensure new, bold and innovative ideas are trialled which will help to reduce long term and inter-generational welfare dependence; and
(5) looks forward to the first round of funding under the program which will improve lifetime outcomes and increase the self-reliance of young parents, young carers and young students.
(Notice given 11 October 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mrs Wicks—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 MS CLAYDON: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) having safe and affordable housing is a basic human right and the absence of which has a huge human, social and economic cost;
(b) housing stress and homelessness are serious issues in Australia—first-home buyers are having difficulty entering the market, rental affordability in cities is at a crisis point, waiting lists for social housing continue to grow, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are disproportionately represented in homelessness and housing stress and there are rising levels of homelessness with 105,000 people designated as homeless on any given night; and
(c) there are often complex social, financial and medical issues that cause housing stress and homelessness that are beyond an individual's direct control; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) appoint a Minister for Housing and Homelessness to provide the necessary focus and leadership required to address the housing issues being experienced in Australia; and
(b) develop and implement a national housing strategy to ensure a sufficient, modern and equitable housing system for all Australians.
(Notice given 30 August 2016.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Ms Claydon—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
12 October 2016
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is the first of four bills to implement the government's working holiday-maker reform package.
The government has been committed to getting the policy right on working holiday-makers. The government has been working hard to ensure Australia remains an attractive and safe destination for working holiday-makers—a critical source of labour for the agricultural, tourism and hospitality sectors, in particular.
But, at the same time, we have been intent on instituting reform that continues to allow us to arrest the debt and deficit left to us by our predecessors. Policy initiatives of this government must be paid for, and this package is no exception.
The working holiday-maker reform package will ensure working holiday-makers pay their fair share of tax, establish an employer register and a compliance regime to address concerns about the exploitation of working holiday-makers.
The package shall also make changes to increase Australia's attractiveness as a destination for working holiday-makers by reducing visa fees, providing new visa flexibility initiatives and providing additional funding for tourism.
Despite these significant and positive changes, the Turnbull government's strict budgeting rules have applied to ensure the budget impact of these changes is fully offset. This can only be achieved if the package is passed in its entirety—we must be able to pay for the changes we want to make.
The 2015-16 budget announced a measure to treat working holiday-makers as non-residents for tax purposes and tax them at 32.5 per cent from their first dollar of income.
The measure was introduced in response to the previous government's changes to the tax-free threshold that meant working holiday-makers who were residents for tax purposes and earning below the $18,200 tax-free threshold were effectively having not just a working holiday but a tax holiday as well under the previous government's arrangements.
Despite continuing to take advantage of Australian services and infrastructure, the obligation to pay Australian income tax was removed for many working holiday makers visiting Australia.
Concerns were raised about the impact of the budget measure, particularly on our global competitiveness as a backpacker destination.
The government listened to stakeholders and reviewed the broad range of issues affecting the supply and taxation of working holiday makers as part of ensuring the policy achieves its objectives.
The government subsequently developed the working holiday reform package now before parliament represented in this package of measures.
Our package acknowledges the importance of ensuring the integrity of the tax base in relation to what is an important area of growth in the economy, but also that this is done in an appropriate way that addresses the concerns of stakeholders that have arisen.
The government understands that working holiday makers are an important source of labour in Australia for sectors that rely on seasonal employment.
After many years of strong growth, since 2012 the number of working holiday makers coming to Australia has been falling. There have been many reasons for this decline, including the state of economy in their home countries, exchange rates, competition from other jurisdictions, and airfares.
The Turnbull government's package of reforms to working holiday maker arrangements not only ensures working holiday makers pay a fair amount of tax on their earnings but also increases Australia's attractiveness as a destination for backpackers.
This bill will set the tax rate to apply to working holiday makers at 19 per cent from their first dollar of income up to $37,000, rather than the 32.5 per cent that applies to the majority of backpackers under non-resident tax rates and that would apply under the announced 2015-16 budget measure. Ordinary marginal tax rates apply for income above $37,000. The new tax rate will apply from 1 January 2017.
Taxing working holiday makers at 19 per cent tax from the first dollar of income up to $37,000 is internationally competitive—Australia will still be a destination with one of the highest expected after-tax incomes for working holiday makers.
Even after taking cost of living differences into account, this change will mean that the after-tax incomes of working holiday makers in Australia are comparable or better than New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom.
This bill gives both working holiday makers and employers certainty about the tax arrangements that will apply, as well as protecting the integrity of Australia's revenue base.
The working holiday maker reform package makes other changes to lower the cost of coming to Australia for working holiday makers. A separate bill will reduce the application charge for (subclass 417 and 462) working holiday maker visas by $50 to $390.
Tourism Australia will also promote Australia to potential working holiday makers through a $10 million global youth targeted advertising campaign.
We are also making other changes to working holiday maker visas to boost the supply of working holiday makers and make it more attractive to visit Australia.
Separately, we are extending the age of eligibility for working holiday makers from 30 to 35, increasing the pool of potential working holiday makers.
We are also introducing more flexible arrangements to benefit working holiday makers and industry, allowing an employer with premises in different regions to employ a working holiday maker for up to 12 months, with the working holiday maker working up to six months in each region.
The government is aware of concerns about exploitation of working holiday makers. A separate bill establishes a compliance regime to help address these concerns. In particular, we will be requiring all employers of 417 and 462 visa holders to register with the Australian Taxation Office.
Registration will entitle employers to withhold at the new working holiday maker tax rate of 19 per cent, from the first dollar of income up to $37,000, rather than 32.5 per cent.
Employers who are not registered will be required to withhold tax at 32.5 per cent from the first dollar of income. Working holiday makers whose employers withhold at 32.5 per cent will have access to the 19 per cent rate on lodgement of their tax return.
The registration process will be simple and will provide valuable data on the employment of working holiday makers. The register will be made public, making it easier to check the registration status of a potential employer. In addition, the Australian Taxation Office will prepare an annual report on working holiday maker employment.
The government is also committing an additional $10 million to support the compliance operations of the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Taxation Office to ensure employers are doing the right things by working holiday makers when they are working in Australia.
These measures are being presented as a package, as they work together to address the issues that have been raised with us as a government. Together these measures will cost some $350 million to implement.
To ensure this package washes its face fiscally, two additional bills outline what we will be doing to pay for these changes. The first provides for a one-off modest increase to the passenger movement charge of $5 to $60 from 1 July 2017. The second increases to 95 per cent the rate of tax on superannuation payments to working holiday makers after they leave Australia. This new rate will also apply from 1 July 2017.
Ensuring the budget is not worse off relies on passage of the full legislative package.
With this package the government has achieved a better policy outcome for Australians and Australian businesses. We have done this, however, while still adhering to the strictest principles of budget management.
Full details of the working holiday maker reform package are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 forms part of a package of bills to implement the government's working holiday-maker reform package.
The government is aware of concerns about exploitation of working holiday-makers. To help address these concerns, this bill establishes a compliance regime to ensure employers are doing the right thing by working holiday-makers while they are here.
The bill will also provide valuable data to the government for the first time on the number of employers and the distribution of working holiday-maker labour across the country. This will assist in reducing abuse of working holiday-maker labour, assisting in compliance and enforcement activities, and helping the government make policy decisions relevant to working holiday-makers.
We will be requiring all employers of 417 and 462 visa holders to register with the Australian Taxation Office. This will entitle employers to withhold at the new working holiday-maker tax rate of 19 per cent, from the first dollar of income up to $37,000, rather than 32.5 per cent. This creates an incentive for employers to register to attract working holiday-makers.
Employers who are not registered will be required to withhold tax at the 32.5 per cent rate from the first dollar of income and may be subject to Australian Taxation Office penalties. Working holiday-makers whose employers withhold at 32.5 per cent will have access to the 19 per cent rate on lodgement of their tax return.
The registration process will be simple, with employers agreeing to a few conditions by phone, email or online, and will provide valuable data on the employment of working holiday-makers.
The register will be made public, with a list of registered employers published on the ABN Lookup, making it easy for working holiday-makers and others to check the registration status of a potential employer.
The Australian Taxation Office could apply a range of penalties to employers for breaches of the tax laws, including failing to register.
The government is also committing an additional $10 million to support the compliance operations of the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Taxation Office to ensure employers are doing the right things by working holiday-makers when they are working in Australia.
This bill will reduce the application charge for subclass 417 and 462 working holiday-maker visas by $50 from $440 to $390 from 1 July 2017. Reducing this charge by $50 will return the real cost of the charge to about the level it was at in 2013-14.
Together with the lowering of the tax rate applying to working holiday-makers, these changes will lower the cost of coming to Australia for working holiday-makers and leave them with more money in their pockets to spend while they are here.
Full details of the working holiday-maker reform package are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2016 forms part of a package of bills to implement the government's working holiday maker reform package.
This bill amends the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Act 2007 to increase to 95 per cent the rate of tax on superannuation payments to working holiday makers after they leave Australia.
Working holiday makers can access the balance of their superannuation after they leave Australia and their visa expires or is cancelled. These funds, which are accessed after the working holiday maker has left Australia, are typically spent offshore.
The payment of this superannuation balance is known as the departing Australia superannuation payment.
The new rate of tax introduced by this bill will apply from 1 July 2017. It is estimated to raise $105 million over the forward estimates.
This bill, together with the bill that increases the passenger movement charge by $5, will fully offset the government's working holiday maker reform package and ensure the budget is no worse off.
The superannuation arrangements that were put in place to support Australians provide for their retirement income were not put in place to provide for the retirement incomes of visitors to Australia. As a result, this is an entirely appropriate measure and ensures that employers of working holiday makers will be paying the same rates of pay to those that they would provide to an Australian.
The reform package will lower the rate of tax that applies to income earned by working holiday makers, which means they will have more money to spend during their holiday in Australia.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2016 forms part of a package of bills to implement the government's working holiday maker reform package.
This package is aimed at ensuring Australia remains an attractive destination for working holiday makers—an important source of labour for industries that rely on seasonal labour such as agriculture, hospitality and tourism.
This bill amends the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to increase the rate of the passenger movement charge from $55 to $60 from 1 July 2017
This is the first time the passenger movement charges have been increased since 2012. The $5 increase is broadly in line with the increase in the consumer price index between 2012 and 2017.
In the intervening period, the government has already acted to lower the cost for travellers and to improve their visitor experience.
We have invested significantly in improving the performance of our airports and the passenger experience through our airports.
We have also established the counter-terrorism units which form an important part of our border security, all funded out of the budget—all funded without making a call on the passenger movement charge.
We have also acted on recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry regarding credit and debit card surcharges. As a result of these changes, travellers to and within Australia are no longer subject to excessive surcharging, whether booking into a hotel, booking a flight or tickets to a show—or even catching a cab.
The government is committed to budget repair. This increase to the passenger movement charge, combined with increasing the tax on working holiday makers' superannuation payments when they leave Australia is estimated to raise $365 million, fully offsetting the working holiday maker reforms and ensuring the budget is no worse off.
These measures to pay for the changes to the working holiday maker arrangements are essential to ensure the government's fiscal position and the trajectory we have committed to to bring the budget back to surplus are maintained.
You cannot go making changes to reduce the taxes paid by working holiday makers in Australia and not seek to offset that with other revenue increases through the measures that we have proposed. Failure to pass the measures that pay for these initiatives would be saying to Australian taxpayers that they should be paying for the tax reductions for working holiday makers contained in the bill—so visitors to Australia should be paying less tax and Australians, therefore, would be forced to pay more tax to subsidise that.
What we have done in this package of measures is ensure that those who are gaining the advantage of these arrangements—the sectors as well as those individuals who visit—are also the ones who will be ensuring that these measures can be funded. It is a well-rounded package of measures.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill delivers on the coalition government's commitment to establish a national register of foreign interests in Australian water entitlements.
This bill, the Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Amendment (Water) Bill 2016, amends the Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Act 2015 to require foreign persons to register certain water entitlements and rights with the Australian Taxation Office.
The bill builds on the significant reforms the government undertook last year to modernise and strengthen Australia's foreign investment framework. Those reforms represented the most significant overhaul of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 since its introduction 40 years ago.
As a large, resource-rich country with relatively high demand for capital, Australia has relied on foreign investment to meet the shortfall of domestic savings against domestic investment needs for over two centuries.
Foreign investment has enabled Australians to enjoy higher rates of economic growth, employment and a higher standard of living than could have been achieved from domestic savings alone.
Foreign investment has other benefits beyond injecting new capital. By bringing in new businesses with connections in different markets, it opens up additional export opportunities, boosting our overall export performance.
While acknowledging the value and contribution of foreign investment to our national prosperity, it is important to strike a balance between maintaining an attractive and welcoming environment for foreign capital on the one hand while maintaining community confidence in the foreign investment regime.
Australians must have confidence that there are clear rules that protect the national interest and that these rules are being enforced.
That is why our government has acted to strengthen the controls we place on foreign investment and is following through with improved enforcement to pursue those who break the rules.
As part of last year's reforms, the government introduced the Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Register. This was in response to increasing community concerns about the level of foreign investment in Australia's agricultural sector.
The Agricultural Land Register and the first report, which I announced the release of last month, has for the first time given the government and community a picture of the overall levels of foreign ownership of Australian agricultural land.
Similar to the Agricultural Land Register, the proposed water register will provide, for the first time, a comprehensive and reliable picture of the level of foreign investment in Australian water entitlements which meet the definition of registrable water entitlement or contractual water right.
The bill requires that from 1 July 2017, foreign persons who hold certain water entitlements and rights must notify the ATO of their existing holdings and any subsequent acquisitions. The government will be able to establish a baseline picture of the level of foreign ownership as well as monitor changing trends over time.
The bill requires the Commissioner of Taxation to administer the register and provide a report for tabling in parliament each year. The report on the water register will contain aggregated data about the water entitlements and rights that are foreign owned by volume, state and territory, water source and country of investor.
The Commissioner of Taxation is also required to publish aggregated statistical information derived from the water register on a website, to provide to the Australian people an understanding for the first time of the foreign interests in Australia's water entitlements.
Regardless of the debate about what level of foreign ownership is ideal, the benefit of the water register will be to provide greater transparency and understanding of the actual levels of foreign ownership in water.
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 amends the Corporations Act 2001 to better align the interests of life insurance advisers and consumers. In doing so, the bill acts on this government's response to recommendation 24 of the financial system inquiry, the root-and-branch review commissioned by this government in late 2013.
Specifically, the bill addresses the current conflicted remuneration of life insurance advisers who typically receive high up-front commissions, in many cases between 100 per cent and 130 per cent of premiums and low trails of 10 per cent, which incentivises policy replacement where there is no consumer benefit.
The life insurance sector is vital for our community. Life insurance provides essential financial security to Australians and their families at their time of greatest need. However, the life insurance sector can only fulfil this role in an effective manner when consumers have confidence that they are being placed into products appropriate to their circumstances.
Conflicted remuneration was prohibited by the Future of Financial Advice reforms in 2012. However, life insurance sold outside of superannuation was exempt. Subsequently, three reports have considered remuneration structures, the life insurance advice and the impact on consumers—namely, ASIC's review of retail life insurance advice, the financial system inquiry and the industry commissioned Trowbridge Report.
The ASIC review found unacceptable levels of poor quality advice and a high correlation between poor advice and up-front commissions, including high lapse rates where consumers are churned through products. Specifically, 45 per cent of cases reviewed involving high up-front commissions failed to meet the relevant legal standard for financial advice. Subsequently, the industry commissioned Trowbridge Review recommended a package of reforms, including a significant reduction in up-front commissions to limit incentives for advisers to inappropriately replace life insurance products or churn. Further, the financial system inquiry recommended a move to level commissions, where the commission is the same for each year of the policy.
The government asked industry to respond to these reviews, and I want to publicly thank them for their constructive engagement and hard work in developing the agreement that underpins the reforms introduced in this bill. This bill shows what can be achieved when government, business and the community work together to improve consumer outcomes.
In particular, I wish to thank the Association of Financial Advisers, the Financial Planning Association of Australia and the Financial Services Council. Each organisation has compromised and in working together have developed a reform package that will benefit life insurance customers through the provision of more appropriate advice and promote the long-term sustainability of the industry.
This bill removes the exemption from the ban on conflicted remuneration for advice on life insurance products and provides ASIC with the power to determine acceptable benefits payable for these products. Under this approach, advisers will be able to receive commissions as long as the requirements set by ASIC in its legislative instrument are met. This will involve meeting two main requirements. Firstly, there will be a cap on the size of allowable commissions. ASIC will have the power to lower these commissions from around 100 to 130 per cent today, to a maximum of 60 per cent from 1 January 2020. Ongoing commissions will be capped at 20 per cent from 1 January 2018. Secondly, these remuneration arrangements will include claw-back arrangements provisions under which part or all of the up-front commission will need to be repaid if the policy is cancelled or the premium reduces in the first two years. The bill gives ASIC the power to create an instrument which covers acceptable claw-back amounts.
The government acknowledges that the final form of the instrument is a matter for ASIC as the independent regulator. It is important to note, however, that there are no caps nor claw-back arrangements for policies sold by level commissions or on a fee-for-service arrangement as these arrangements are less likely to result in an incentive to provide inappropriate advice to consumers.
The government has continued to listen to feedback raised by industry and key stakeholders during consultation on the life insurance reforms. Firstly, the government has moved from a three-year to a two-year clawback period in response to concerns about ongoing business viability.
Secondly, the government has amended the commencement date of the reforms to 1 January 2018. This will enable the government to remove the generous grandfathering that was available under FoFA, which allowed advisers to continue to receive conflicted remuneration for the length of their enterprise agreements plus an additional 12 months.
The government wants these reforms to start as soon as possible and to apply equally to all advisers, whether they own their own small business or they are employed by a major bank. To achieve this, the reforms will commence 12 months after the entire reform package is settled. This will provide advisers with 12 months to renegotiate their collective agreements to be consistent with the new legislation.
The bill also enables the regulations to ensure that sales of life insurance that do not technically involve advice are captured by the reforms. The intention of this regulation making power is to ensure that all life insurance distribution channels are treated equally under the law and to maintain the integrity of the reforms by providing a flexible mechanism to address avoidance mechanisms into the future.
These legislative changes strike the right balance between protecting consumers and recognising the need for ongoing business viability and industry stability. The government believes that consumer interests will be best served by a competitive life insurance sector that delivers products appropriate to consumer needs and includes both small and large participants.
Being such a significant reform to the sector, the government understands that it is important for business to have time to adapt to this change. That is why there are transitional provisions which scale down the maximum permissible up-front commissions over three stages.
ASIC will undertake a review of the reforms in 2021. If this review does not identify a significant improvement in product churn and the quality of advice, the government will move to mandate level commissions, as was recommended by the Financial System Inquiry.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Criminal Code Amendment (War Crimes) Bill aligns Australian domestic law with international law in relation to the treatment of members of organised armed groups in non-international armed conflict.
Crucially, these amendments do not alter the protections from attack afforded to civilians and other protected persons under international humanitarian law, including medical and religious personnel, and persons who are hors de combat.
The amendments will provide the Australian Defence Force (the ADF) with the legal certainty needed to target members of organised armed groups with lethal force, including in the context of current ADF operations against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. They also reflect the reality that such groups are akin to regular armed forces, and their members should therefore receive treatment equivalent to members of regular armed forces under Australian domestic law.
Summary of amendments
Members of organised armed groups do not benefit from the protections accorded to civilians and other protected persons under international humanitarian law. The bill amends division 268 of the Criminal Code Act to provide express recognition of this fact under Australian domestic law.
The bill will also align Australian domestic law with the requirements of the international humanitarian law principle of proportionality in relation to attacks on military objectives in non-international armed conflict.
Finally, the bill makes a minor technical amendment (to section 268.65) to exclude military personnel from the list of protected persons who may not be used to shield or impede military operations.
This minor correction reflects the position at international humanitarian law, under which military personnel are not protected persons. It reflects the intention of the provision at the time it was enacted in 2002.
Members of organised armed groups — schedule 1, part 1
Members of organised armed groups are recognised as a category distinct from civilians under international law.
As stated by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in its Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities, 'all persons who are not members of state armed forces or organised armed groups … are civilians.'
Once a person is identified as a member of an organised armed group, he or she may be targeted with lethal force subject to the ordinary rules of international humanitarian law.
This is recognised in the ICRC's Commentary to article 13 of Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions, which expressly confirms that those who belong to armed forces or armed groups may be attacked at any time.
Aligning Australia's domestic legislation with international law in this respect will ensure that our military forces are able to conduct more effective operations against members of organised armed groups.
Accordingly, part 1 of schedule 1 of the bill contains amendments to clarify that certain war crimes offences applicable in non-international armed conflict—that is, sections 268.70, 268.71 and 268.72—do not apply to protect members of organised armed groups.
Consistent with the principles outlined in article 41 of Additional Protocol I, a member of an organised armed group will not be targetable when they are hors de combat. According to paragraph 2 of article 41, a person is hors de combat where he or she has clearly expressed an intention to surrender, or is unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore incapable of defending himself or herself.
Whether a particular non-state armed group qualifies as an 'organised armed group' for the purposes of international humanitarian law, such that its members may lawfully be targeted in a non-international armed conflict, is a question of fact to be determined in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time.
Key indicia that a particular group is an 'organised armed group' will include: evidence of a command structure or hierarchy; at least a minimal degree of organisation; and a collective purpose that is related to the broader hostilities and involves the use of force. Analogous indicia have been elaborated by international courts such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, (ICTY), which has discussed the issue in a number of judgments, including its April 2008 judgment in Prosecutor v Haradinaj and its November 2005 judgment in Prosecutor v Limaj.
Importantly, under international humanitarian law, an organised armed group may exist within a larger entity. For example, an entity may have a political wing, an armed wing, an administrative wing and/or a religious wing. In that case, only a subgroup that actually engages in hostilities will qualify as an 'organised armed group'.
The question of whether a particular individual is a 'member' of an organised armed group such that he or she may lawfully be targeted will also be a question of fact, to be answered on the basis of available information and intelligence. As to the degree of certainty that a decision-maker must have, the standard adopted by international tribunals has been a 'reasonable belief'. This was referred to by the ICTY in Prosecutor v Galic, for instance.
The functions a person carries out can be a strong indicator as to whether or not that individual is a 'member' of the relevant group. In this respect, it is appropriate to consider whether the person is involved in combat, combat support, or combat service support functions similar to those functions in a state's armed forces.
Proportionality in non-international armed conflict — Schedule 1, Part 2
Separately, part 2 of schedule 1 of the bill also amends division 268 of the Criminal Code to reflect the requirements of the international law principle of proportionality in relation to attacks on military objectives in non-international armed conflict.
The principle of proportionality is codified in article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which applies in international armed conflict, and has also been recognised by the ICTY, for example in Prosecutor v Kupreskc, as a customary rule applicable in non-international armed conflict.
The principle prohibits attacks which are expected to cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Accordingly, the bill will amend sections 268.70, 268.71 and 268.72 to make it clear that it is not an offence under those provisions for a person to conduct a proportionate attack against a military objective. This is consistent with the protections afforded to civilians under international humanitarian law.
Conclusion
This bill will align Australian domestic law with the position at international law in relation to targeting operations against members of organised armed groups in non-international armed conflict.
These amendments will ensure that ADF personnel are empowered to target organised armed groups at their core, to the extent permitted by international law, and that they will be supported by our domestic laws in doing so.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak on the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2016 and move:
That all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to explain why it has failed to close tax loopholes and increase transparency in Australia.'
This bill ratifies the recently renegotiated Australia-Germany tax treaty. Its purpose is to eliminate double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital and to update certain definitions, including the definition of 'permanent establishment'. In supporting this bill, Labor is relying on assurances provided by Treasury to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on 29 February 2016 that nothing in the agreement prevents either Australia or Germany from enacting domestic laws relating to tax evasion or tax avoidance.
I note that the bill comes at a cost, with the estimated cost over the forward estimates being $125 million. I note, too, Labor's disappointment that submissions to the Treasury's consultation process were not made public. But I do note that this is a bill whose passage has been recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The bill includes a strengthened definition of 'permanent establishment', and it is an agreement that will benefit intellectual property exporters, primarily German companies, and intellectual property importers, primarily Australian companies.
We on this side of the House appreciate any improvement that is made to the definitions in our tax laws to better catch profit shifting. But in supporting this bill we note that the government have consistently squibbed the opportunity to act on multinational tax avoidance. We have seen from this government a promise to reduce the safe harbour levels and the thin capitalisation rules in the 2016 budget. We know that they were coming close to changing those thin capitalisation rules—even briefing out to journalists that the 2016 budget would crack down on thin capitalisation—but at the last moment they pulled the measure from the budget.
One thing they forgot to do, though, was to remove the definition of 'thin capitalisation' from the budget papers. The budget papers include an orphan definition. The term 'thin capitalisation' is defined but does not actually appear in the budget. There could be no more clear sign that this government yielded to special interest pressure in backing down on closing loopholes on multinational profit shifting.
We on this side of the House have a strong package on multinational tax avoidance. We are committed to changing the way in which debt deduction rules operate by applying a worldwide gearing ratio. This is a rule which is consistent—not an arbitrary threshold—has strong economics to defend it, is good equity policy and adds to the budget bottom line.
This government has asked the tax office to do more extensive audits, but at the same time it has sacked tax office staff. There are now thousands fewer full-time, permanent tax office staff than there were at the time the coalition won office. While this government has called for greater tax transparency in the press, in parliament it has refused to support Labor legislation that would require greater tax transparency from private firms. This government talks about tax transparency, but its actions on tax transparency have been to raise the publication threshold for ATO tax data from $100 million to $200 million. That deal that it did last December with the Greens took two-thirds of private companies out of the tax transparency net.
Labor are committed to budget repair that is fair and, in the process of this, we are committed to ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share. You cannot support small businesses in this country if, at the same time, you are backing tax loopholes that are only accessible to multibillion-dollar firms. Labor have led the way on tax transparency; Labor will continue to lead the way on multinational profit shifting. While we have had the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services saying in April this year, 'There needs to be a registry of beneficial ownership in our country,' Australians are still waiting for the registry of beneficial ownership. We have now heard that Minister O'Dwyer is not committed but is 'exploring options' for a register of beneficial ownership. Again, that is a step back from the tax transparency Australians demand.
Australians look at this government and they see a government that is pretty tough when it comes to taking on the most vulnerable in Australia—people with disabilities, the young and jobless, and pensioners—but is pretty weak when it comes to taking on the big end of town. Sure, we support the modest measures in this bill, but we call for significant action by Australia on cracking down on multinational tax avoidance.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
This is a very important bill. It includes treaty provisions which form part of the OECD BEPS process—that is the base erosion and profit-shifting project. No project could be more important to Australia's future prosperity than one that deals with eliminating multinational tax evasion. It was work I and G20 finance ministers started in 2013, and it shows the importance of international cooperation and how essential that is if we are to deal with the scourge of multinational tax evasion.
Over the last decade this evasion has been increasingly facilitated by tax havens and also by tax shields. As the European decision to slug Apple with a $13 billion bill shows, tax havens facilitate epic rent seeking. We have all heard about trickle-down economics, but it has an older and uglier brother: the straight rip-off where companies refuse to play by the rules and their cronies simply look the other way. Last year, as a result of Labor's tax transparency legislation, tax office data revealed that one in three private companies in Australia paid no tax and one in four public corporate entities operating in Australia paid no tax. In addition, half of the foreign companies operating in Australia had no taxable income, while 56 millionaires paid no income tax.
In the Senate inquiry into tax evasion, some of Australia's largest global companies were exposed for using aggressive transfer-pricing activities, costing the public billions of dollars in revenue. When global and respected companies operate in this cavalier way, it compromises the integrity of the social contract and green lights others to follow in their tax-avoiding footsteps. In tax discussions there is a conventional distinction between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion. The reality is there is a spectrum.
Today I want to discuss the behaviour of one company: BHP. Their behaviour leads me to believe they have operated at the evasion end of the spectrum for over a decade. The evidence against BHP is damning. In this period they have ramped up their Singapore marketing hub to camouflage aggressive transfer pricing, costing Australian taxpayers well over $1 billion.
Earlier this year I spoke in the parliament about BHP's use of Singapore as a tax shield. In response on 17 February the chief financial officer of BHP wrote to me claiming his company was a leader in the global business community on tax transparency. He claimed BHP had met its tax obligations in full, notwithstanding its use of the Singapore tax shield, which at that stage had resulted in a bill from the Australian Taxation Office of nearly $1 billion.
Seven months later, on 22 September, the full extent of BHP's deceptive and dishonest conduct was revealed in the Australian Financial Review. BHP finally admitted that the tax liability for their controversial Singapore marketing hub had hit close to $1.4 billion. The Australian Financial Review was reporting from their economic contribution report and their annual report. Without any hint of shame in the Financial Review that day, their chief financial officer, Mr Beaven, described this tax office bill as being a dispute over valuation rather than tax evasion.
Transfer pricing is exploited when a company sells a product between two arms of its operation in order to book its profits in the lower tax jurisdiction. This tax shield used by BHP in Singapore is used to smuggle profits out of Australia. Mr Beaven may choose to cutely describe aggressive transfer pricing as a valuation dispute, but in the world in which we all live this is evasion.
We now know, despite the veil of secrecy from BHP, that tax office audits into BHP's aggressive transfer pricing evasion have now been going on for over a decade. The tax office audits only came to the public's attention and mine through the Senate committee. They were not known to me as Treasurer in my 2010 discussions with miners surrounding the MRRT.
Some of us in this place remember the mining tax debate in 2010. I remember it pretty well. Two things really stand out in my mind. One is that BHP was frothing with outrage at the very suggestion they were paying too little tax during a period when Australia's mining and mineral resources were enjoying record-high prices. The second was their claim that the government's proposed resources rent tax would destroy their operations, close their projects and kill their jobs.
One of the central arguments BHP used at that time was that they paid very high rates of corporate tax and this somehow excused them paying an historically low share of tax on the supernormal profits they were earning. Well, now we know the truth. Between 2005 and 2014, BHP sold Australian minerals to its Singapore marketing hub to avoid paying taxes on profits of $5.7 billion. While BHP paid $1 billion in top-up taxes, these taxes only applied to 58 per cent of the profit generated through the Singapore marketing hub. A full 42 per cent of the profit was untaxed in Australia. Nor was it taxed by the government in the UK, where BHP is co-owned. The directors of BHP Australia and BHP UK are the same people. Overall the tax paid by BHP represents only 10 per cent to 12 per cent of their total profits, made almost exclusively by selling Australian resources. While BHP maintain that their Singapore operations are at arm's length from their Australian branch, I make the simple point again that the directors of both the UK and Australian entities that control the Singapore hub are the same people.
At the height of the mining tax debate, BHP were inflating the impact of the MRRT on their operations while funnelling their profits through foreign tax havens. As the government negotiated with the miners in good faith on critical issues, the miners were expanding their tax avoidance schemes at the same time. It was interesting to see that BHP have finally disclosed that an audit from the tax office has served them with an additional bill for the MRRT of $117 million.
There is now no question that BHP has been gaming the system and is in serious dispute with the tax office over its unpaid taxes. BHP cannot claim to be transparent given its failure to clearly outline numerous back payments as a result of tax office audits as well as failing until now to outline the amounts currently in dispute with the tax office and the Australian states. And of course the governments of Western Australia and Queensland have also been treated very badly by BHP, which has sought to evade critical royalty payments due to the peoples of those states.
Forensic investigation of BHP has revealed it began to pay withholding tax in 2011. These taxes are likely to have been levied by the ATO for profits made on Australian operations, exposing an additional loophole BHP was exploiting. This finding is damning for the management of BHP during 2010. There is a stark contrast between the esteem in which BHP, its executive and the board expect to be held and their actual behaviour. BHP does have an experienced board—Mr Nasser, Mr Andrew Mackenzie, Mr Brinded, Mr Broomhead, Mr Davies, Anita Frew, Caroline Hewson, Lindsay Maxsted, Wayne Murdy and Dr Schubert. The board owes the Australian people a full and frank explanation of its role in approving these aggressive transfer pricing schemes. The board of BHP has not been true to the values it espouses in its charter of corporate responsibility.
Corporations are not ends in themselves. The community cannot allow the corporate veil to hide the moral responsibilities of those that run those corporations. We live in a community, not in a corporation. When companies fail to pay their fair share of tax, revenue must be found elsewhere from businesses and individual taxpayers. The billions of dollars avoided are forever lost to education and to infrastructure, which are vital investments to the growth and ultimately of the country, and ultimately support the bottom line of all corporates operating in our community.
If we assume 10 per cent of corporate tax collections is lost through these practices, the cumulative cost to the budget is $26 billion over four years. Now at a time when this government hacks and slashes at the social safety net in the name of budget repair, it is simply obscene for corporates to walk away with money on this scale. There is a stark contrast, as I said before, between the respect that the boards and their executives demand and their actual behaviour. These actions of these businesses tear at the very fabric of our community and erode trust in business as well as in government.
In government, Labor acted on rampant tax evasion and minimisation. And every step of the way, we were opposed by the coalition. Now in government, the coalition has obstructed or watered-down legislation to expose the extent of tax evasion and minimisation. Tax avoidance saps a government's capacity to effectively govern. It erodes the community's faith in politicians that tolerate it and it sends a signal that there are two tax systems—one for the super wealthy and one for the rest of us.
The recent decision by the European Commissioner for Competition to raise $13 billion in evaded taxes by Apple will hopefully give momentum to taxation authorities around the world to deal more aggressively with the scourge of multinational taxation. It is a decision that ought to be welcomed by the Australian government and tax authorities because it sends a signal to arrogant multinationals that when they put in place artificial structures that do not correspond to economic reality, they should be dealt with forcefully and harshly.
Over a two-year period, the Senate Standing Committees on Economics inquiry into multinational tax evasion and high net worth individuals showed that multinational tax evasion has reached epidemic levels. As the tax commissioner himself said at the time 'enough is enough'. If a company operates in Australia, it has a moral and legal obligation to pay tax here and to support the economic system which nurtures our business sector. A progress tax system for corporates and individuals is central to a country's capacity to fund its own growth. It is one of a number of structural reforms required to lift living standards across the developed and the developing world.
Rampant tax evasion torpedoes this central platform of inclusive growth and will hinder the development of the sustainable development goals. And of course rampant tax evasion is now a structural cause of growing inequality globally and in our country. The failure of the Business Council of Australia to speak out about these practices compromises its standing and credibility. Tax havens and their plundering of the revenue from developed and developing countries, and the protection they provide large corporations and wealthy individuals is now a dramatic handbrake on global growth.
Just as importantly, tax avoidance is a huge part of the trashing of public faith in democratic legitimacy right around the globe. Everyday workers have the sense that the economy is an inside-outside game in which the wealthy play by different rules and everyone else is denied opportunity. Well they are wrong. What we need to do is to put in place ethical systems. Everyone has a moral responsibility to pay their tax but there is an economic responsibility to try to drive the growth and the reform and the living standards that are required for consensus across the democratic world. The behaviour of BHP, one of the largest mining companies in the world, is one that proves that we have a long way to go until we get the standards that we need for a system of democratic government that is funded correctly by corporate and individual tax.
Proceedings suspended from 10:31 to 10:46
On behalf of the House I welcome, as guests, the President of the Senate, the Hon. Stephen Parry, and honourable senators to this sitting of the House of Representatives to hear an address by His Excellency Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore. Mr Prime Minister Lee, I welcome you to the House of Representatives chamber. Your address today is a significant occasion in the history of the House of Representatives.
Today we welcome the Prime Minister of Singapore, Prime Minister Lee; his wife, Ho Ching; and a delegation of senior Singaporean ministers, MPs and officials to our Australian parliament. This is an auspicious occasion. It is the first time the Singaporean Prime Minister has addressed the Australian parliament, and we are privileged to welcome today a leader who is a great friend of Australia. We appreciate the role Prime Minister Lee has played in transforming our successful relationship formed in the late 20th century into a partnership fit for the challenges and the opportunities of the 21st century.
Australians have long admired Singapore and its resilient, diverse and creative people. Last year was bittersweet for Singapore. The nation celebrated its 50th anniversary and mourned the passing of her founding father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, whose son we welcome to our parliament today as his nation's Prime Minister.
Prime Minister, your father was one of the giants of the 20th century. He founded a nation whose only assets were its people and its location, and created what has become a 21st century city state, one which embraces the rapid march of technology and science, just as it does the trade and open markets upon which its success has been established.
Australia was the first country to establish diplomatic relations with Singapore, but the relationship was forged even before that in the fires of World War II and the defence of Singapore, in which over 1,700 Australians lost their lives. More than 1,000 of them are buried in Singapore's soil at Kranji cemetery. In the decades since, Australia's friendship with Singapore has flourished. We are, after all, quite natural partners—highly sophisticated, educated and multicultural societies with open economies. Both our countries have embraced the opportunities presented by our steadfast commitment to rules-based trade to deliver more jobs and higher incomes for our people.
Singapore is Australia's fifth largest trading partner and foreign investor. As Asia continues to grow, our shared prosperity will benefit from greater integration and collaboration between our complementary economies. Alongside our economic partnership our two countries share a common strategic outlook. Today, on the anniversary of the Bali bombing in 2002, we reaffirm our steadfast solidarity in the battle against extremism and the terrorism which it spawns, an anathema to the tolerance and diversity our societies cherish. Together with our friends and allies, we collaborate more closely than ever to prevent and disrupt those terrorists who seek to do us harm.
We seek a future for our region governed by shared norms of behaviour and respect for international law, and one marked by stable relations among the major powers. Singapore and Australia are at one in defending the rule of law and rejecting the proposition that might is right. Australia and Singapore are firm proponents of institutions that support regional stability and prosperity, such as ASEAN and the East Asia Summit. I am delighted that Singapore will be ASEAN's chair when Australia hosts the ASEAN leaders for a historic summit here in 2018.
The relationship our two countries enjoy is in great shape and would, Mr Speaker, be an easy one to allow to evolve along its natural course, but that would be denying both countries the rewards of even closer cooperation. Last year on the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations, Prime Ministers Lee and Abbott signed the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, a 10-year plan to expand the frontiers of our bilateral cooperation across economic, strategic and people-to-people dimensions.
Tomorrow our governments will sign the first tranche of initiatives under our Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. We will update the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement to drive unprecedented economic integration with our Asian neighbour. The agreement will include new measures intended to improve mobility for business people, give better access to government procurement, reduce red tape and make it easier for Singapore to invest in Australia. It will foster further trade and investment, helping both countries to seize the economic opportunities of our growing region.
One of the most exciting economic opportunities is in the field of science, technology and innovation. I was struck by Prime Minister Lee's National Day address this year, in which he discussed the way in which technology was transforming Singapore's economy and society. The Prime Minister spoke thoughtfully about the anxiety this caused to those working in industries that are disrupted by technological change. He spoke enthusiastically of the opportunities. Above all, Prime Minister Lee showed himself as a leader who rejected the populist cries for less trade, more protection, less change; and instead he embraced the future while maintaining an inclusive and cohesive society.
So we have very similar world views, and it is fitting therefore that our closer relationship with Singapore will include a new partnership that will open up collaborations between our world-renowned research institutions, Australia's CSIRO and Singapore's A*STAR. Soon we will establish an innovation landing pad in Singapore to provide a platform for Australian start-ups to team up with their Singaporean counterparts and Singapore-based industry and capital, to bring their ideas to market and accelerate and amplify the already strong collaboration between our two countries' innovators.
Tomorrow Prime Minister Lee and I will also inaugurate a new chapter in our defence relationship. My government has agreed to expand access for Singapore's armed forces to training grounds in Australia. These grounds in North Queensland will be co-developed by Australia and Singapore and will make a long-term and very beneficial difference to local economies and jobs. Our decision to grant Singapore this special level of access underlies the enormous trust and respect that exists between our respective armed forces. It also reflects our commitment to do more as security partners, especially as our strategic circumstances change and evolve.
I have spoken of our like-mindedness with Singapore, our shared interests and our complementary strengths. I want to conclude with some fond words about our similar national characters. We are countries with different histories and different cultural traditions, yet we are countries familiar and comfortable with one another. We prize informality. We are suspicious of pretence. We speak plainly and with pragmatism as friends should. We focus on outcomes and delivery not pomp or protocol. Each of us can lay claim to being among the most successful multicultural societies in the world. So our bright future is not just about complementary interests and strengths; it is about common human qualities. To borrow from Prime Minister Lee: I, and I am sure all members of this parliament, are immensely reassured that our relationship with Singapore springs from the heart as much as it does from the head.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
I thank the Prime Minister. I call on the honourable Leader of the Opposition to support the remarks of the Prime Minister.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the traditional owners of this land and I pay my respects to their elders both past and present.
Prime Minister Lee and Mrs Lee, on behalf of the opposition and the Australian people, welcome to the Australian parliament. Personally, it is a pleasure for me to meet with you again, and all of us are looking forward to your address, to hearing in this place the Singapore story—the story of a people who came through the turbulence surrounding them—the Malayan Emergency, Konfrontasi, the Sukarno split, the challenges at home and the newly independent economy seemingly without the room or resources to grow. But from this uncertainty Singaporeans have emerged as the proud citizens and architects of a modern, thriving, engaged and open nation. Prime Minister Lee, your father, more than anyone else, began this story, and you have authored your own distinguished chapter.
Your presence here speaks for the strong bonds between our nations as well as a reminder of just how far Australia has come. When we first established our formal ties in 1965 Singapore existed in the Australian consciousness primarily as a reminder of the days in which we faced our gravest threat—the fall of the supposedly invincible British garrison. Nearly 15,000 Australian prisoners of war were captured and brutalised. Australian blood was shed in the defence of Singapore. Australians still lie at rest in Kranji cemetery. Even when peace came Australians still imagined ourselves fearfully perched on the edge of Asia. Today, Prime Minister, we give thanks those days are long gone. Today Singapore and Australia greet each other as equals and friends.
Whilst we both share a common strand of British heritage, I believe, like the Prime Minister, that, more importantly, we share in the common quality of informality. We are partners in prosperity, respected voices in ASEAN, APEC and the East Asia Summit, known as advocates for peace and security in our region and the wider world. In Afghanistan, our troops served alongside one another, holding back the forces seeking a base for terrorism. And Labor welcomes the comprehensive strategic partnership that will see up to 14,000 Singaporean troops train at Shoalwater Bay in Queensland per year. This is good news for the regions and good news for our region. And both our nations are engaged in countering the new threat of extremism: the fight against Daesh, its agents and imitators.
We also share a tradition of learning from each other. From your father's famous warning, a rebuke that shook Australia out of the lethargy, and certainly my own party's pursuit, of an open, outward-looking economy engaged with the markets of Asia. This legacy we commemorated in this parliament in our condolence motions last year. And we still see the merit of openness, new markets and new investment, not the least because we see the success of Singapore. Prime Minister Lee, as the top maths student of your Cambridge undergraduate class—the Senior Wrangler—and perhaps the only world leader who can solve sudoku in computer code, we know your passion for the sciences runs deep. Your country's embrace of technology, science and the value of ideas helps inspire Australian policymakers.
Our nations have also grown through cultural exchange. Personally, I still vividly recall being well and truly outpointed by the sleekly-prepared Singaporean university team at intervarsity debating in the late 1980s. Perhaps more importantly though, 130,000 Singaporeans have gained degrees in Australian universities, including some of the guests you bring with you—your permanent secretaries here today: Peter Ong, Chan Yeng Kit, Chan Lai Fung. And there are more than 20,000 Australian expatriates living and working in Singapore, including friends of mine who voted at the Royal Tanglin Golf Course at the polling booth in the last three weeks of June—a booth we targeted most heavily! These Australians, of course, returned to their friends and family, praising a place where they know they are welcome.
Singapore is a culture that is different enough to feel novel; familiar enough to feel at home. There is the brilliant public transport, the dynamic workplaces which your government has made stronger and more balanced by legislating a five-day week and, of course, in Singapore it is the food—it always comes back to the food. Indeed, Joseph Schooling, who at the age of 13 had the thrill of meeting his hero, Michael Phelps, and at the age of 21 had the joy of beating Michael Phelps in the 100 metre butterfly at Rio, making history as Singapore's first ever Olympic gold medallist—even the kid who defeated the king—paid tribute to the stallholders who gave him free vegetables as a child. He celebrated his victory with a traditional black carrot cake at the Marine Terrace hawker centre. But, Prime Minister Lee, I have since learnt that this new Singaporean idol—hero—was merely seeking to follow in your footsteps: trying to replicate the national social media sensation you caused when you were spotted queuing for over 30 minutes for your favourite type of chicken wings.
Prime Minister Lee, Australia has no closer friend in Asia than Singapore. Let us work together to an even stronger, richer friendship in the years ahead. Welcome and enjoy your stay.
Mr Prime Minister, on behalf of senators and members, can I now also welcome your official party to the floor of the House. Mr Prime Minister, it gives me great pleasure to invite you to address the House.
His Excellency Mr LEE HSIEN LOONG (Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore) (11:04): Mr Speaker; the Honourable Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister; the Honourable Stephen Parry, President of the Senate; the Honourable Bill Shorten, Leader of the Opposition; senators and members of parliament; ladies and gentlemen: thank you all for your warm welcome. I am honoured to address you in this Parliament House today. I am also very happy that with a comprehensive strategic partnership, the CSP, Singapore's relationship with Australia has reached another significant milestone.
Singapore's ties with Australia go back into history. During the Second World War, as you have heard, Australian troops fought bravely to defend Malaya and Singapore. Many gave their lives. After Singapore fell on 15 February 1942, some 15,000 Australians became prisoners of war in Changi. They built the Changi chapel, which was re-erected after the war at Royal Military College, Duntroon. Singapore will never forget their sacrifice. During the Malayan emergency, Australian soldiers fought communist guerrillas in the Malayan jungles.
When Singapore joined Malaysia in 1963, President Sukarno of Indonesia launched Konfrontasi, a low-intensity conflict to undermine the new federation. Australian forces defended Malaysia in Malaya and Borneo. In 1965 Singapore separated from Malaysia to become an independent republic. You were one of the first countries to recognise our independence and the first to establish diplomatic relations with us. You played a key role in establishing the Five Power Defence Arrangements in 1971. The FPDA provided critical security to a new and vulnerable country and remains relevant to this day.
Through these momentous events our leaders worked closely together, got to know each other well and established warm personal friendships. When Sir Robert Menzies passed away in 1978 Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our founding Prime Minister, wrote a condolence letter to Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, which was read out in the Australian parliament. When Mr Lee passed away in March last year the Australian parliament moved a motion to honour his contributions to bilateral relations, and Mr Tony Abbott attended Mr Lee's state funeral service as Prime Minister. The people of Singapore were deeply touched by these gestures of sympathy and friendship.
How is it that Australia and Singapore, two very different countries—as Prime Minister Turnbull said, a 'wide brown land' and a 'little red dot'—can forge such a deep bond? In land area, Australia is more than 10,000 times the size of Singapore; we are smaller than many sheep farms! The ACT alone is three times the size of Singapore. Australia has abundant natural resources; Singapore has none—we even have to import water, from Malaysia. We are both Commonwealth countries, yes, but historically Australia has been Anglo-Saxon in composition and identity while Singapore is an Asian society, even though we speak English and we have the cosmopolitan outlook of a port city.
Yet we are good friends, because, fundamentally, we have similar strategic interests and perspectives. First, we are both open economies that rely heavily on international trade, on global markets. We both need a stable and orderly world in which countries big and small can prosper in peace. This requires an open and inclusive social regional order where all the major powers can participate. We both see the United States as a benign force playing a major role in fostering peace and stability in Asia.
At the same time, we both have substantial ties with other major powers. For both of us, China is our largest trading partner. We wish to strengthen our cooperation with China and welcome China in engaging constructively with the region. For instance, we both participate in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, an initiative proposed by China. Secondly, we both want to deepen ties between Australia and South-East Asia. Australia has decided that its future lies in Asia. Singapore believes that strengthening Australia's links with Asia will help to keep the region open. Australia took the first step by becoming ASEAN's first dialogue partner, in 1974.
Singapore and Australia also worked closely to launch the ASEAN Regional Forum, where countries regularly discuss political and security issues. I am glad that Prime Minister Turnbull has invited ASEAN to a summit in Australia in 2018, two years from now. Singapore will be the ASEAN chair then and will continue to support Australia's engagement with ASEAN.
These key priorities were reflected in Prime Minister Bob Hawke's strategic move to launch APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, in 1989. At that time the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations were deadlocked. APEC aimed to liberalise trade in the Asia-Pacific and to give a push to global trade. Singapore was happy to support Australia. I participated in the first APEC meeting, here in Canberra, as Minister for Trade and Industry. I am very pleased that APEC has since grown and become an active platform where the leaders discuss global economic challenges.
But Singapore and Australia do not only share similar strategic interests. Our two peoples have similar outlooks. Our societies are open, inclusive and multicultural. We value our ethnic and religious diversity and appreciate the different races and cultures in our midst. We accept change as the way forward and look outwards to the world for inspiration, ideas and opportunities.
Our people are open and direct. We are pragmatic and focus on solving problems. We think and talk in clear practical terms and therefore connect on the same wavelength. It does not mean that we agree on everything, but when we have different views we do not beat around the bush. We express ourselves candidly, address our differences and can narrow or at least define the gap, because we know where each other stands.
Our societies are both egalitarian. We do not stand on ceremony and we frown on rigid social hierarchies. We are informal and can hang loose! Thus, when Prime Minister Abbott visited Singapore last year I could invite him to join my constituents for an Aussie style BBQ at a public park, only to discover that he was much better at barbecuing than I was! Afterwards, we went to dinner nearby! I made sure to choose some good Australian wine, but, alas, I neglected to check the steak. After dinner, Prime Minister Abbott asked the chef where the beef was from and the chef, with Singaporean directness and candour replied, 'From the US, Sir'! I will have to do better when Prime Minister Turnbull visits us next year.
I have often personally experienced Australian warmth and hospitality. I first came to Australia nearly 50 years ago, in 1967, as a teenager on an exchange visit. I stayed with a family in Melbourne—the Blanch family. Their son Graeme was about my age and we quickly became friends. The Blanches took me to their holiday home at Mount Martha, on the Mornington Peninsula. For dinner on the first night, not knowing what to expect, I put on a tie! Graeme stared at me and said, 'You are crazy! Take it off!' He taught me something about Australian informality that I have not forgotten. I have stayed in touch with the Blanch family for all of this half a century, so I am very glad that today Graeme, his siblings Balfour and Heather, and their spouses, are here with us to share this special occasion. And I am sure that many other Singaporean and Australian families enjoy similar close personal ties and lifelong friendships.
This shared strategic outlook and social ethos is why Singapore and Australia have done so many things together. Many Singaporean entrepreneurs have invested in Australia. They are confident of Australia's future and comfortable with the business culture. More than 20,000 Australians live and work in Singapore in all sorts of professions. The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, SAFTA, signed in 2003, was Australia's first FTA outside of New Zealand. It has helped make little Singapore your fifth largest trading partner and investor. We have also worked together on regional economic integration—first with APEC and now with the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the TPP; and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the RECP.
Our two countries cooperate closely on security issues and humanitarian missions. Our security agencies work closely and quietly together to fight terrorism—sharing intelligence and information, carrying out counterterrorism operations and exchanging notes on religious rehabilitation and deradicalisation programs. It is important always and is especially worth mentioning today on the anniversary of the Bali bombings.
The Singapore Armed Forces and the Australian Defence Force train and operate together. They conduct joint bilateral and multilateral exercises and attend each other's military courses. We are grateful that you have for many years welcomed our troops to train in Australia, particularly at Oakey and Shoalwater Bay in Queensland and the RAAF Base Pearce in Western Australia. I hope we have been good guests. Our forces have operated alongside each other in Uruzgan in Afghanistan, worn blue berets in East Timor and Cambodia and cooperated in antipiracy operations in the north Arabian Gulf. In Iraq and Syria, we are fighting ISIS together as part of a counter-ISIS coalition. Our tankers have refuelled your F18 fighters regularly. These deployments reflect our shared strategic priorities and have built camaraderie and a sense of common purpose among our troops.
I know these not just as abstract principles but through personal experience. Years ago—in 1983—we had a cable car accident in Singapore, and 13 people were trapped in the cable cars to Sentosa after an oil rig snagged the cable. I was then serving in the armed forces and directed the rescue operations. We dispatched two helicopters with winchmen to rescue the trapped passengers. One of the pilots was a young Royal Australian Navy officer—Lieutenant Geoff Ledger. He was on exchange with the Republic of Singapore Air Force, helping to build up its search and rescue capability. He did not have to fly this mission but he did, piloting one of the helicopters. It was a risky operation at night under windy conditions but, fortunately, the rescue succeeded. Geoff Ledger has since retired from active duty, as a commodore, and I am glad that he is here to share this special occasion with us.
Turning to education, through the generosity of your Colombo Plan scholarships, hundreds of Singaporeans received university education in Australia and went on to contribute to our society and government. They include two presidents, several cabinet ministers, two heads of the civil service and many senior public servants—some of whom are here today. Beyond the Colombo Plan, Australia has welcomed and educated over 100,000 Singapore students.
In the other direction, many Australian students come to Singapore on exchange programs. I am glad that foreign minister Julie Bishop had the vision to champion the New Colombo Plan. By the end of this year, Singapore universities will have welcomed some 800 Australian New Colombo Plan students. They will continue the spirit of exchange and renew the connections and goodwill between our peoples into the next generation.
Our people also visit each other frequently. Last year, some 400,000 Singaporeans visited Australia and one million Australians visited Singapore. Some come for education or business; more come for holidays or to visit family and friends. We feel quite at home in each other's countries. Singaporeans may not quaff quite as much beer as Australians, but I have it on good authority that Victoria Bitter goes well with chilli crabs!
Indeed, many of us have families living in both countries, starting with Prime Minister Turnbull. I was very glad to learn last year that the Prime Minister had a new granddaughter, Isla, born in Singapore during our golden jubilee—our SG50 year. In Singapore, we would call her an SG50 baby. But because it was also the 50th anniversary of Singapore-Australia diplomatic relations, she is also an SA50 baby.
For these compelling reasons, I am happy that Prime Minister Turnbull and I have concluded the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership—an ambitious package that enhances core aspects of our cooperation and brings together our complementary strengths. I thank Prime Minister Turnbull for his strong backing for the CSP, and indeed the whole coalition team and colleagues from Labor and the crossbenches for your continued support.
In defence, under the CSP, the Singapore Armed Forces will have more training, space and opportunities in Australia. With a 25-year horizon, we will jointly develop state-of-the-art facilities in Australia. This will improve the quality of our training and help to overcome Singapore's size and constraints. Our two armed forces will have more opportunities to train together and enhance interoperability. And I think more Singaporean servicemen will go home with sheepskins and little koala bears!
In trade liberalisation, an upgraded SAFTA will make it easier for our professionals and entrepreneurs to work in each other's countries. And the CSP also covers innovation and science. Australia has, in the CSIRO, a very well developed institute for scientific research. Singapore also emphasises the importance of R&D to our economy, and we have A*STAR, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research, to lead our efforts. We have identified some key challenges to tackle, including basic urban problems like water supply and energy conservation. And we have much scope to cooperate more in R&D.
Arts and culture will also get a boost, building on the rich exchanges we have had. A new Australia Singapore Arts Group will steer the deepening of exchanges between our museums, art festivals and visual and performing arts. Through these exchanges the CSP will cement our partnership for many years to come.
The CSP will enable Singapore and Australia to do much together. It is fitting to celebrate this milestone in our friendship in this Parliament House. It has a special link with Singapore which honourable members may or may not know about. Thirty years ago, Singapore planned to build a new triservice military institute for our Singapore Armed Forces. We studied military academies in other countries, including ADFA, and searched for a suitable architect to do the project. We eventually found Mr Romaldo Giurgola, who had built this Parliament House. My first visit to this Parliament House was in 1989 when I was in Canberra for the inaugural APEC meeting. Mr Giurgola gave me a guided tour and explained his architectural vision. He showed how he had made it open and accessible to the public, how the building emerges from the landscape and how people can walk around it as well as on the grass ramps which cover the building. It is impressive without being imposing, and reflected the spirit of the Australian parliament—open; integrated with the community. Mr Giurgola's design reflected how he saw the architect's duty: to reflect the spirit of the institution in the building and not to impose his own view. After seeing the Parliament House, I felt much reassured that we had found the right architect for our SAFTI Military Institute, who would understand our needs and express intangible but crucial values in brick and mortar.
And, indeed, we are happy with what Mr Giurgola built for us. Our SAFTI MI is on a much more modest scale than your Parliament House, but it, too, has an open concept symbolising the close ties between our national service force and our citizenry and society. We are also happy that, over the years, many Australian officers have trained at the SAFTI Military Institute and formed bonds of friendship and understanding with their Singaporean classmates, which will serve our two countries well.
In all these diverse and profound ways, our two countries are linked together—by our shared history, by strategic alignment, by shared ethos, by personal friendships, by what we do together and even by our architecture. Our partnership is greater than the sum of its parts. I look forward to Singapore and Australia working together to deepen and to strengthen it and enabling our peoples to prosper in peace and friendship for many, many more years to come. Thank you very much.
Mr Prime Minister, on behalf of the House, I thank you for your address. We wish you and your wife a successful and enjoyable stay here in Australia. I thank the President of the Senate and senators for their attendance and I invite the Prime Minister to escort our guest from the chamber.
The Chair will be resumed at 1.30 pm.
Sitting suspended from 11:29 to 13:30
Today I want to take the time to draw special attention to the Woodcroft Lake Festival, which is fast becoming a tradition. Every year, around September, locals gather to celebrate what is great in their local suburb. The 12th festival, held on 24 September, was once again a major focal point for residents. If, after 12 years, you are able to draw together locals, businesses and others, you are doing something right, and clearly that is what it is happening at Woodcroft. It was a terrific occasion that brought everyone together. I am proud to continue my support for the festival, which is celebrated with a wide variety of entertainment, market stalls, delicious food and activities. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Woodcroft Lake Festival committee—and, in particular, its President, Lucas Cayanan—on their tireless work that has resulted in a successful celebration once again this year.
While I am here, I also want to congratulate the Ted Noffs Foundation at Mt Druitt, who were successful in their application for a Stronger Communities grant for Chifley. The team, led by Julie Dubuc and Ian 'Esky' Escandor, received $6,000 in dollar-for-dollar funding for the installation of some amenities at their place to provide quality facilities to allow them to better meet the needs of young people attending the Street University. They give young people access to a range of creative workshops. They are doing some great work, and I thank the Ted Noffs Foundation for their continued effort in our great suburb of Mt Druitt.
I rise today to congratulate the talented sportsmen and sportswomen from the Central Coast that represented us so well at the recent Olympic and Paralympic Games in Rio. Athletes who appeared in the Olympic green and gold include Matt Dawson in the men's hockey team, Jesse Parahi in Rugby 7s, and Lachlan Tame and Riley Fitzsimmons in canoeing.
At the Paralympics, we cheered on the legendary Liesl Tesch in sailing, Dylan Littlehales in canoeing, Rae Anderson in athletics, with Matt Formston and Nick Yallouris in the cycling team. For Liesl Tesch, this was an historic games. Described as our Woy Woy wonder woman—and she definitely is that—Liesl and sailing partner Dan Fitzgibbon sailed into the history books by winning gold in their class with two races to spare, becoming the first Aussie sailors in history to win back-to-back Paralympic gold medals. Across seven Paralympic Games campaigns, Liesl has an astonishing record of two golds in sailing, as well as two silvers and a bronze in wheelchair basketball.
I would also love to give a special mention to Olympians Lachie and Riley. It was a truly unforgettable moment to join with their friends and family at the Avoca Kayak Club to cheer them on. The pair have been members of the surf club at Avoca since a very young age, and, as a community, we could not be more proud of them and their efforts. On behalf of the entire Central Coast, I thank them and congratulate all of our sportsmen and sportswomen for their achievements.
Roads and complacency are a deadly mixture. Over 1,200 Australians still die annually on our roads. Alarmingly, the number of lives lost actually rose by 6.9 per cent in the year to August 2016. When Australians feel let down by government it is often because the tangible problems they face every day of their lives never seem to get addressed. Last election, after years of campaigning from people from all walks of life and all sides of politics, bipartisan commitments were given to allocate $50 million of federal funds to begin the upgrade of one of Australia's most infamous death traps, the Appin Road in my electorate. Appin Road is the 37 kilometre single carriageway that connects south-west Sydney to Wollongong and to the Hume and Princess highways. No one disputes that the road suffers from major and chronic design flaws along much of its length and that it is no longer fit for purpose.
Appin Road has taken 23 lives in the last six years alone. Melissa Bond was one member of the Macarthur community taken too early, a PDHPE teacher from John Therry high school in Rosemeadow. Melissa was young, wonderful and clever, and she was loved by our community. We cannot wait for another bunch of flowers to appear on the side of the Appin Road. We cannot wait for our community to lose another mother, father, brother, sister or child. I request the government to urgently provide the $50 million required. (Time expired)
Today I am very pleased to speak about two recent visits to schools in my electorate—one in Derby and one in Geraldton—and the new facilities that these schools have recently been lucky enough to acquire. I received such a warm welcome at the Holy Rosary School in Derby last month, and it was my absolute pleasure to be involved in the opening of their new library and 12 newly refurbished general learning areas. I met the very dedicated principal, Robert Palladino, members of the school board and the wonderful members of the student representative council. I also had the pleasure of officially opening a science, technology, engineering and mathematics building at Geraldton Grammar School just a few days later. This valuable project involved the construction of four general learning areas, two science laboratories, two staff areas, two offices and a storeroom. I then had the pleasure of spending time with principal Nick Johnstone, members of the school board and also the very delightful school captains, Liam Sipila and Rukaya Msuo. Both of these very deserving projects were funded through the Capital Grants Program, a fantastic federal government initiative to provide education infrastructure to non-government schools across Australia.
Colleagues, I draw your attention to the students in the gallery from Wangaratta West Primary School. Could you please say hello. Hello everybody. Welcome to parliament.
It gives me great pleasure to talk today about some of the wonderful work done by the voluntary community groups around Wangaratta and also just south of Wangaratta in the town of Glenrowan. I had the pleasure last Wednesday of attending the annual general meeting of the Glenrowan Improvers, and today I would like to take the chance to acknowledge and thank the members of the committee who have been putting their hands up for community service: President Ken, Vice President Gary Dean, Secretary Linton, Deputy Secretary Cindy, Treasurer Bill Gent and, in particular, Ross Jones. Ross, I hope your feet are feeling better.
I want to acknowledge the work of the Glenrowan Improvers. At the annual general meeting they gave a report on some of the really important work they are doing in the community. Today I would particularly like to talk about one of their big projects, which is the Ned Kelly interpretive centre. It is one of the things that Glenrowan really wants to establish so we can provide a focus for the local story of Glenrowan and through it the story of the Kelly gang. I use 'gang' in a collective sense because many of the families and the relatives of the Ned Kelly community still live in Greta and they still live in Glenrowan. The idea of the interpretive centre is that people can stop off and learn some of the local history and hear the real story of the Kelly experience.
Today I want to speak about the Strzelecki Track, a 450-kilometre inland trail connecting Lyndhurst at the northern tip of the Flinders Ranges to the Birdsville and Strzelecki tracks, both leading to south-east Queensland. Historically the routes were opened up to service the cattle industry, bringing stock to the Ghan rail line. In later years both tracks have become popular tourist drives, but the Strz stands alone because over the last 50 years it has been the main service route to supply the Moomba gas fields, one of South Australia's greatest economic assets. While the Cooper Basin has been exploited for over 40 years, the advent of new technologies means we probably have not accessed more than 15 per cent of the resource. The best is yet to come.
However there is one important proviso here—the Strz is as rough as guts and the 400 kilometres from Lyndhurst to Moomba can take more than 12 hours in a road train. The road inflicts a very heavy and expensive toll on equipment. In recent years the Queensland government has bituminised their network to the border, and South Australia is threatened with missing out on any economic advantage. The Strzelecki track needs to be sealed. I had a meeting last week with the Premier Jay Weatherill. He has shown an interest in trying to bring this joint project to fruition, and I am working on the minister at the moment to make sure we get the appropriate attention.
On this day 14 years ago an unspeakable act of terror was perpetrated on innocent people, many of them Australian, who were enjoying a night out in a bar at Kuta Beach in Bali—202 people from all over the globe, including Balinese locals, would never return home after that night. Eighty-eight of them were Australian, and 20 of them called Kingsford Smith their home—players, officials and supporters from South Sydney junior rugby league clubs; surfers and surf lifesavers who shared a love of and affinity with the ocean and Bali's magnificent waves; community volunteers; and families simply enjoying a holiday in Bali. These were people who made our community such a special place to live; people who touched the lives of so many in our area. They were friends and family members we will never forget.
This morning a memorial service took place, as it does every year, on the headland at Coogee Beach at the Bali memorial. On Sunday I attended a memorial service in Malabar for seven members of that community who lost their lives. On behalf of the people of Kingsford Smith, my condolences go to all those who lost loved ones in this terrible tragedy. They will be forever in our hearts.
On 19 September I attended a very interesting forum at the Panania Anglican Church in my electorate. I met with parishioners and we discussed a wide range of very important cultural, social and economic issues and a whole range of other matters. I want to thank Reverend David Milne for organising this evening. It was, as I say, a very wide-ranging and in many ways fascinating discussion with the parishioners on these different topics.
Panini Anglican Church is one of the largest church groups in my area, and under the leadership of Reverend Milne it plays a very important role in our community. The church offers classes across a range of areas. It has a very active ladies guild and runs craft and growth groups, which allow people to interact and learn and get to know others in the local area in a comfortable and accepting environment. It also has similar services for kids, running a very popular creche for preschool children. To Reverend Milne and everyone who was there on 19 September, thank you very much for the invitation—I enjoyed the evening and discussion and very much and look forward to a similar event in the future.
Today I would like to send my best wishes to Jewish Australians who are today marking Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur is the holiest day in the Jewish calendar and is a day of atonement. Its origins lie in a ritual of purification and it is customary to wear white on Yom Kippur, which symbolises purity and calls to mind the promise that one's sins should be wiped away. Yom Kippur is also a time of repentance and a time to reflect. Many Jewish Australians, whether they are secular or Orthodox, will mark Yom Kippur today by fasting, refraining from work, and attending synagogue services.
Today a number of members from parliament from each side are absent because of Yom Kippur. Holy days such as these call for prayer and contemplation. It is an occasion that allows us to consider the significant contribution of the Jewish community to Australia—contributing in every community and excelling in every field. This week both sides of politics reiterated our commitment to a future free from prejudice and racial intolerance. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition reiterated our commitment to a responsibility to unite, not divide. Modern multicultural Australia should give us the opportunity to come together and celebrate every occasion with joy rather than avoid religious references out of fear. In this spirit I take great pleasure in wishing everyone all the best for Yom Kippur and a gut yontif for this evening—a joyful breaking of the fast.
Last week was Neighbourhood Watch Week, so I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank all the hardworking and underappreciated volunteers from Neighbourhood Watch for the work that they do in helping to keep our community safe. Neighbourhood Watch was founded in Victoria by a group of concerned citizens who realised that our police alone could not control the rising crime they were facing at that time. Since then, they have grown to include more than 1,300 Neighbourhood Watch areas covering 900,000 households and have become a much valued and respected institution within our community, including my community in Deakin. Within Deakin, both the Whitehorse and Maroondah Neighbourhood Watches include groups of volunteers who do an amazing job in trying to keep our streets safe.
Unfortunately, in Victoria, under our state Labor government, crime is once again on the rise—up by more than 13 per cent. Theft, assault and carjackings are becoming common occurrences, with parts of Melbourne becoming the playground of violent gangs. At the same time, Labor have cut police numbers and indeed have cut funding to Neighbourhood Watch at this critical time. I call on Labor to do the right thing in the midst of this epidemic of attacks on law and order—do the right thing and restore funding to Neighbourhood Watch and allow us to make the streets of Victoria safe again.
The NRL grand final took place on Sunday, 2 October. A number of games were held that day. I rise today to congratulate the Illawarra Cutters for their recent win over the Burleigh Bears 54-12 in the Intrust Super Championship. This win marks the first win for New South Wales based team in this competition.
Whilst some may argue that this team is solely an Illawarra based team; they are, in fact, the feeder team for the St George Illawarra Dragons. It was with great pleasure I attended the Dragons awards evening just last Friday. I wish to congratulate the coach of the Cutters, Jason Demetriou, and his team on such an amazing win and further congratulate Shannon Wakeman on being named the Cutters player of the year and his selection in the Italian Rugby League squad for the 2017 World Cup.
I would also like to congratulate the Cronulla Sharks on their inaugural NRL grand final. Of course, I would like to recognise Michael Ennis in his last game. I single out Michael because he did once play for my team, the Bulldogs, at some point. Jack Gibson once said that waiting for Cronulla to win a grand final was like leaving your porch light on waiting for Harold Holt to come home. Well, Harold Holt may not be home, but the porch lights can be turned out in Cronulla. Congratulations to the Illawarra Cutters.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the outstanding fundraising efforts of the students at Parklands Christian College at Park Ridge.
The students, teachers and parents travel every year to Cambodia to serve in Taskor Village. The Parklands community has already made a significant contribution to the lives of locals by building The Salt School in an effort to improve education.
This year's mission trip, students will be building a house for a teacher with their fundraising goal of $19,000. Their aim is to promote a safe space for educators to stay close to the school. Students are well on their way to reaching their fundraising goals, having already hosted a barbecue on sport day, as well as a school fete with rides, stalls, games and an auction. As part of their fundraising mission, each student has their own fundraising account, with the aim of raising $1000.
I would like to commend the teachers, parents and students for helping to change lives. Giving young people and education in a third world country like Cambodia gives them hope, courage and opportunities. Congratulations and well done to Parklands Christian College on making this happen for the children of Taskor Village.
Yesterday I attended the launch of the Australian College of Nursing white paper, titled 'Nurses are essential in health and aged care reform'. Nurses are amongst the most highly-regarded and valued professions in society. Nurses make up about half of the health workforce and are in the frontline of the provision of health services. For many rural and remote communities nurses are the first point of contact in primary health and often act as the sole provider of primary health services.
Nurses, however, face their own serious challenges. The average age of nurses is 44 years with too many younger nurses leaving the profession. By 2030, if existing trends continue, it is projected that Australia will have a shortage of 120,000 nurses.
Nurses have a unique insight into and direct impact on the success of programs, yet governments fail to adequately consult them or include them in strategic policy debates when developing health policy.
The nursing white paper offers a way forward for doing that and calls on the government to: recognise the nursing profession's role; invest in policy platforms that enable the full participation of the nursing profession; ensure the nursing voice is heard in strategic policy debates and reform developments; recognise the value of nurse led innovation; support nurses to work to their full scope and expanded scope, where necessary; and acknowledge the pivotal role of nurses in setting standards of care.
The government cannot be serious about health reform without genuinely including nurses in the process.
Today I rise to speak about a stalwart of the Wynnum community that sadly has shut its doors after 60 years of service. It is with great sadness I announce that Bayside Electrical Services is no longer. I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on the difference this small business on Tingal Road has made in the community over the last 60 years, thanks to its owner Brian Turpin.
Brian first opened Bayside Electrical back in 1957 when he was just 21 years old. He speaks with pride about the rundown 1938 Bedford he bought for 350 pounds back in the day and how he restored to use for his business.
From there, Bayside Electrical became a fixture of the Wynnum area, known and loved by all. Brian did not just provide outstanding products and service; he also donated generously to local community groups. He made a difference to so many and asked for no recognition in return.
I was touched to receive a call from Brian's granddaughter Kayleene last week inviting me to come down to shake Brian's hand at the very last close of business. I could see how much the shop had meant to him, and I could see how much it had meant to the people of Wynnum. Congratulations to Brian on a well-deserved retirement. Your generosity has been an inspiration. I wish you all the best in the future.
On the Labour Day long weekend I attended the Sydney Fiesta Cultura, one of the many activities of the Philippine Australia Sports Club, known as PASC. PASC is the oldest Filipino association in Australia originally formed to run sporting events for early Filipino migrants way back in 1976 with the first 'Palarong Pilipino' at Turramurra. They moved onto larger events, and their work has culminated in the most recent celebration, their 28th Fiesta Cultura.
It is always great fun; it is not the first time I have attended one, by any means. It is easily the largest event in the social calendar for Filipino-Australians and is the longest continual multicultural celebration in the southern hemisphere. This distinguished organisation is recognised by both the Australian and Philippines governments and has been the recipient of two Philippines Presidential Awards.
I have to specifically mention the finals of the Miss Philippines Australia Pageant, because Parramatta's own Jade Crystal Wright was selected as Miss Charity Queen after raising more than $40,000 for charity. Like Jade, I would like to congratulate her mum, Cathy Snell, who has been one of her greatest supporters along the way. I am sure Jade will do a great job with her friend and newly-crowned Miss Philippines Australia, Angela Leonidas, representing both the countries that she loves and helping those in need both here and in the Philippines.
I must acknowledge Manny Castillo who has been the president of PASC for 40 years—he has done an extraordinary job—and Lolita Farmer who has recently been elected as the new president. I wish them both well.
Today, I rise to talk about a cause that is near and dear to my heart, and that is violence against children. Data provided by the World Health Organization and the Australian Institute of Family Studies show that 1 in 26 Australian children are affected by violence. This equates to one child in every classroom. Globally, a staggering 150 million girls and 73 million boys under the age of 18 are victims of sexual violence. Those numbers are sobering, as is the official statistic that 90 per cent of all sexual violence against children is perpetrated by men.
Now in its third year, YGAP's Polished Man campaign challenges men to unite and lead by example, channelling their collective strength of masculinity to protect society's most vulnerable citizens and our future leaders. This year the campaign calls on men to help raise more than the $600,000 during October by encouraging them to paint a finger nail, help raise funds and spark community awareness. All funds raised through Polished Man are channelled into trauma recovery and trauma prevention programs for children who have suffered or who are at risk of suffering from violence globally. No child should live in fear of sexual or physical violence.
I regularly hear complaints from residents and businesspeople in my electorate about the poor quality of the internet service accessible at their homes and offices. And so it was especially disappointing to discover that the long-scheduled date for connection to the NBN has been quietly cancelled by this government in Pascoe Vale, Glenroy, Fawkner, Hadfield and Coburg, in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. These people are eager to access the benefits unlocked by the most important infrastructure project in the nation. It is for good reason; we all know the profound economic, educational, entertainment and societal value of broadband connectivity. Broadband is not a luxury but an essential utility. It powers so much of the essentials in our lives, and a substandard internet connection makes life less than it should be.
It took one eagle-eyed citizen of Wills by the name of Lachlan Cunningham to notice that the promise of a long overdue upgrade had been silently, sneakily broken by the government. On its watch, it has been quietly removed from the website. Alas, there has not been any revised rollout date announced; we are left with no idea when access to this essential modern infrastructure will become a reality for all the people of Wills. That is a shame. Worse still, some of their neighbours in adjacent suburbs are connected to the NBN because it was rolled out by the previous Labor government.
I rise today to update the House on a significant development in my home state of Western Australia—one that will re-establish a dedicated rural bushfire service. The most recent bushfire season was arguably the worst our state has ever seen. In my electorate of O'Connor, four people died last year when fires raged through the Esperance region. In the neighbouring electorate of Forrest, two people lost their lives and the town of Yarloop was all but reduced to rubble. Following the destruction in Yarloop, the state government launched an inquiry into bushfire management, led by respected former fire chief Euan Ferguson. Mr Ferguson made a series of recommendations that the state government has since adopted.
I strongly believe that drawing on local expertise is an integral part of effectively fighting bushfires. As a member of my local Carrolup Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, I can attest to the knowledge these teams have of geography and conditions in their respective areas. Since January, I have been working with regional volunteer firefighters to ensure they will have input into future strategies. Last month, I introduced WA Premier Colin Barnett to some of the most experienced rural firefighters I know: John Iffla and Merv Austic, from the Emergency Services Volunteers Association, and Tom Brown, who led the volunteer effort in Esperance last year. They were able give the Premier a first-hand view of the needs of a volunteer organisation. I am pleased to see the state government acknowledge that a dedicated rural fire service requires a regionally based management structure. This will be a positive reform in Western Australia and it will help mitigate the risk of devastating fires in the future.
I rise today to speak on the importance of social inclusion in our communities, and I would like to mention the important work being done through the Touched by Olivia Foundation, or TBO, by John and Justine Perkins, Olivia's parents, in my electorate of Lindsay.
This Sunday, TBO will open its first Livvi's Place in my community, in the new suburb of Jordan Springs. It will house an adult sized changing space, accessible trampolines, accessible parking and many accessible features that kids and adults with varying ability can access, play on and be included with. This is even more special to me given that I began this project as a humble and committed volunteer and community driver over five years ago, and my son, who was my inspiration to getting active on this project, will speak at the opening.
Through the support of Lendlease, Penrith City Council and the community of volunteers and donors, this project has come to fruition. We are lucky to have a local council and councillors that support accessibility throughout our community.
Also, I would like to mention the social inclusion provided by NADO in supporting people in my community who have a disability. I commend them on their recent achievement of securing the NADO car, which has been generously contributed to by many local businesses. I thank them for their support: Complete Recruitment Solutions, Reimer Winter Williamson Lawyers, Andrew and the One Agency Reeves Properties team, GBS Partners, Vision TV, RAMS Home Loans Penrith, The Australian Loan, Reozone, Synergy Financial Services Group, Eastside QSR, Brendan at Clickmedia, Nine Pillars, Abcoe, Evolution Medical Care, and Mitronics.
The car will enable people with a disability to attend and access many social and community events that they would otherwise be excluded from. (Time expired)
I would like to follow on from the comments by the member for Deakin and bring to the attention of the House the disgraceful behaviour of our state Labor government in Victoria and their complete neglect of the people of Goldstein.
The reality is that in July of this year the state Labor government announced a plan to build a 13-storey development over Ormond train station after its recent development. As a consequence, there has been no consultation or engagement with the community. Small businesses were given two weeks to deal with the circumstances and the damage that has been done to their business. Small traders have been put out of business because of Labor's indifference and arrogance towards people in the great electorate of Goldstein. Worse than that, Labor now have a plan where a high-rise redevelopment is being proposed in a suburban area which has no shop frontage and is not appropriate for the context.
I am pro-development, and I recognise the importance of making sure that we have housing affordability for everybody, but even the Greens local mayor says it is a bad idea. That is how bad it is. Labor are constantly demonstrating in Victoria that they are not interested in people's interest, they are not interested in protecting communities and they are only interested in delivering for their Labor union mates.
Honourable members interjecting—
I remind members that 94(a) applies right through the day. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I inform the House that we have present in the chamber this afternoon His Excellency Tshering Tobgay, Prime Minister of Bhutan, accompanied by the ambassador to Australia, and also the Honourable Tim Fischer, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and former member for Farrer. I extend to you a very warm welcome to the floor of the House.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Immediately after the election, the Prime Minister said he had learned a clear lesson about his cuts to Medicare. What lesson did he learn? What policies did he change? What cuts has he reversed? Can the Prime Minister answer this question without another tantrum about a text message?
I thank the honourable member for his question. He shows his glass jaw very neatly there. Clearly the text message is a bit of an issue for them. It is amazing: eventually even the Leader of the Opposition realises that deceiving millions of vulnerable Australians is wrong. Even the Leader of the Opposition is starting to feel the shame, just a little bit. It is creeping up. It has got up to his ankles. It has a long way to go, but he is starting to recognise that maybe it was not such a great idea to send out a lying message purporting to be from Medicare and designed to deceive. His own health spokesman did not seek to defend it on the basis that it was true, did not seek to defend it on the basis that it was accurate, but sought to defend it on the basis that people had already made up their minds and it would not have changed their opinion anyway. The member for Isaacs is not here, but if he were he would assure you that would be something you would say as a plea in mitigation on sentencing, not to get off the charge. It was an outrageous falsehood.
We are investing record levels in Medicare every year. Because of the way in which we are managing the finances that we apply to public health, we have been able to add many high-cost life-saving drugs to the PBS. Let me give the House a real-life example. On Monday, 1 February this year, we listed a new drug, ruxolitinib, an investment of over $180 million over the forward estimates. It is used for the treatment of the condition of myelofibrosis, a rare cancer of the bone marrow. Myelofibrosis is debilitating, potentially life threatening and affects approximately four in every 100,000 Australians. This new listing allow over 950 cancer patients to receive this PBS-subsidised treatment with ruxolitinib. One of those patients is Marilyn Harvey, who lives in the electorate of Boothby. When asked about taking this drug, Marilyn said: 'It's like a miracle. I have less pain. I'm able to move more.' This has had a real effect on her quality of life. Without that PBS subsidy, without our ability to manage those finances so it was available, she would face unaffordable costs of up to $100,000 a year for this life-saving treatment. That is what we are doing with public health: managing it in the interests of Australians.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you advise the House on the importance of trade and investment to the government's national economic plan—specifically, on the importance of expanding strategic ties with Singapore?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, he comes from the great state of Western Australia, which is so close to Singapore and so connected to Asia and understands perhaps as well as any part of Australia, if not more, how important this relationship with Singapore is to our future. We are living through a time of technological change and opportunity—a time in which there is significant disruption in established industries but also enormous opportunities. We have to recognise, as the Singaporean Prime Minister has done today and in his public addresses previously, how important it is that we do not turn inwards and that we do not go down the road of shallow populism, of protectionism and of trying to hide under the doona and pretend the modern world is not upon us. Far from increasing living standards, protectionism will deliver lower growth, fewer jobs and less investment. It is not the answer to Australia remaining a wealthy, prosperous and generous economy.
Our economic plan has as its foundation open markets and free trade. Our big export trade deals—undertaken, committed and entered into under the coalition—have secured the future of thousands of Australian jobs and businesses. The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement alone, which the labour movement opposed vehemently in a very vicious advertising campaign, is creating regional jobs and opportunities right around the country. We will continue to seize on those opportunities.
Tomorrow's signing of the enhanced Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Singapore, as honourable members have heard, will deliver substantial mutual benefits, not least from the more than $2 billion investment by Singapore in expanding Defence infrastructure in Queensland made available to Singapore for training. Prime Minister Lee's visit to Australia marks the importance of the friendship between our two countries, one that began, as we have heard today, on the battlefields of World War II. Our countries are natural partners. We are both committed to and have embraced free trade. There are critics and enemies of free trade in our midst, but both of our nations know that free trade and open markets are the key to continued prosperity. And underpinning that prosperity is a steadfast solidarity in the cause of peace, and, above all, as we said earlier today, in the battle against Islamist terrorism, an issue that is fresh in all of our minds today on the anniversary of the Bali bombing in 2002. We work closely together on all those elements—trade, the economy, security—together, arm in arm, Australia and Singapore, advancing the interests of our two great nations.
My question is to the Prime Minister. After the election, the Prime Minister said that he had learnt a lesson, a very clear lesson, about his attacks on Medicare. So, why hasn't the Prime Minister abandoned his cuts to breast screening, MRIs and X-rays, which will mean Australians will have to pay more vital scans?
I call the Minister for Health.
Opposition members interjecting—
It is interesting that the member for Scullin has participated in the fraudulent misrepresentation that the Leader of the Opposition is guilty of when it comes to Medicare. But it is a funny thing, Member for Scullin, because the truth always comes to the surface. Your question indicates that you have not worked out the truth yet, but we have on this side of the House.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Whitlam will put his prop down.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Whitlam can leave, under standing order 94(a).
The member for Whitlam then left the chamber.
The truth is that this government is investing more in Medicare than any previous government, including any previous Labor government. The truth is that this government saw 17 million more bulk-billed consultations than any previous Labor government. The truth is that the cuts, as you describe them, are not that at all—that agreements with the diagnostic imaging sector and the pathology sector during the campaign made it very clear that we will invest up to $50 million a year in scans, including the ones the member for Scullin mentioned. The diagnostic imaging sector in return said they would maintain the same rate of bulk-billing.
The Leader of the Opposition popped up in a new pathology centre every five minutes—remember that?—banging the table. The interesting thing was that he does not appear in any of those centres any more. He might get you to ask the question, Member for Scullin, because he knows the answer. He knows the truth: this government's investment is a record, increasing, sustainable and a whole lot better than Labor's record in government.
I will leave you with this Member for Scullin: you cut $6 billion from medicines and Medicare while in government. You, the Labor Party—all of those here who were part of that government—cut $6 billion from Medicare and medicines. Don't tell more lines to the House.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on Australia's defence relationship with Singapore? How does the close relationship with Singapore benefit both our nations?
I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. As we heard this morning from Prime Minister Lee in his address to the parliament, Australia and Singapore share a long history of defence engagement, particularly through supporting the training of their military here in Australia. In May this year the Australian and Singaporean governments announced that Australia and Singapore will jointly develop military training areas and facilities at Townsville and at Shoalwater Bay, in North Queensland. Singapore will fully fund this redevelopment, spending $2.25 billion in North Queensland to develop those training facilities—around $1 billion at Shoalwater Bay training area and about $1 billion at the Townsville field training area and its environs.
Australia will also grant Singapore enhanced access for unilateral land training. From the current six weeks each year it will increase to 18 weeks each year, and training for Singaporean troops will increase from 6,600 up to 14,000—so more than doubling the current access Singapore military training to North Queensland.
This is really good news on many fronts. It is particularly good news for those members who represent North Queensland and Central Queensland electorates, like the member for Dawson, the member for Capricornia, the member for Leichhardt, and other members in North Queensland. It will create jobs and it will create growth in that part of Queensland, an area that is suffering more than many other parts of Australia, because of the mining boom going from the construction phase to the extraction phase. So, for the small businesses, the medium enterprises and the people looking for work in North Queensland, this is particularly good news. It is also a vital investment in military infrastructure, building our defence capability and working with our Singaporean allies to do just that. So it also ticks the box of increasing our defence capability, and it will strengthen the Singaporean Defence Force, through the military training here in Australia, strengthening a key ally of Australia in our local region.
Finally, of course, it further cements and binds together the Singaporean and Australian relationship, whether that be a defence relationship, foreign policy or an economic relationship. As we heard from Prime Minister Lee this morning it is one of Singapore's and Australia's most important and enduring partnerships, so it further binds us together with one of our key allies in the region, which can only lead to more stability and more peace in the region in which we live.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Mental health expert Professor Patrick McGorry has warned that a plebiscite will harm people's mental health. Has the Prime Minister obtained any other expert advice that says the plebiscite debate will not be harmful and, if not, why does the Prime Minister think he knows better than Australia's mental-health experts?
I thank the honourable member for her question. As I said yesterday and, I think, as Professor McGorry acknowledged today, I have discussed the matter with him. I will cite what Professor McGorry said publically rather than go into our private discussion. Professor McGorry made the point to agree with my proposition that Australians are able to have a civil discussion about this, but he said that he was concerned that there were some small elements—subgroups, I think, was the term he used—which would be intemperate in their conduct and that that could cause distress for some people in the LGBTI community.
I simply leave honourable members with this question, and it is a very fundamental one for our democracy: are we going to say that we may not have a public debate on a topic when it is alleged that there will be a minority, some small groups, that will act intemperately? Are we going to disentitle the vast majority of Australians from having their say?
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right; the Leader of the House, the member for Barker, the member for Deakin and the member for Canning will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
On direct relevance: the question specifically asks whether—
Honourable members interjecting—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Members will cease interjecting. I want to hear the Manager of Opposition Business.
The question does not go to whether a plebiscite should occur but goes to whether or not expert advice has been obtained on mental health—that is what the question is about.
The question also had a preamble; the Prime Minister is in order.
Patrick McGorry is an expert, and I have spoken to Professor McGorry about this as I often speak about mental health issues with him. As honourable members know, one of the key commitments of our government is to preserve and enhance the mental wealth—the mental health—of Australia. As Professor McGorry's counterpart, another great Australian psychiatrist, Professor Ian Hickie, talks about the importance of the mental health of Australia he talks about the mental wealth of nations. We have a $192 million commitment to new mental health services, and I look forward to the health minister having the opportunity to say some more about that today if honourable members want to go into this.
Let me get back to the point I was making before I was interrupted by the Manager of Opposition Business. Labor's point is to say that because they believe a small number of people will participate in the debate in an intemperate and harsh way, perhaps in a discourteous and cruel way, then everybody else in Australia—the other 99 per cent of Australians—should not be able to have a say. That is ridiculous. It is completely ridiculously, and if that proposition were accepted, how are we going to go with a referendum on constitutional recognition? Are we not going to have that because there are some people who will make unkind, racist remarks? Are we going to disentitle all Australians from having a say because of a small minority—(Time expired)
I would like to inform the House that we have present, this afternoon, in the gallery a delegation from Sri Lanka, led by the Sri Lankan State Minister of Defence and accompanied by the Sri Lankan High Commissioner to Australia. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. South Australia has 11.8 per cent of the nation's local roads and seven per cent of the population; however, we receive less than five per cent of the federal funding towards large transport infrastructure projects. South Australia is grossly underfunded for road infrastructure, and in 2014 we lost the supplementary local road funding that addressed this inequity. During the devastating recent storms my electorate suffered over $10 million worth of damage to local roads, a cost my community can ill afford. Will the government urgently review their funding model to make it fairer for South Australia, and will the government consider an urgent one-off grant to help repair the badly damaged roads in my electorate of Mayo?
I would like to thank the member for her question on an important local issue. It was certainly a devastating storm that occurred in South Australia. Our thoughts are with the people in your community and, more broadly, the people affected across South Australia. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the emergency service crews throughout South Australia for the work they did in assisting people in their time of need.
The Australian government has worked very closely with local state authorities in South Australia to help provide assistance to individuals, families and local councils who have been impacted by the storms across the state. That does include financial assistance for local councils, which will assist in the repairing of eligible infrastructure such as roads, as the member indicated—roads damaged as a direct result of the storms and returning them to their predisaster standard. Of course, I would be very happy to meet with the local member, at some stage in the future, to discuss some civic infrastructure issues in her local community.
I would note that through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, which have been made available to assist local councils, such as the Adelaide Hills, Alexandrina and the Barossa, the federal government is assisting with removal of debris from residential properties to make them safe and habitable, some personal and financial counselling, counterdisaster operations and the restoration of essential public assets.
An opposition member interjecting—
I am surprised that the shadow minister is interjecting on such an important issue for the people of South Australia. As the member would know, the coalition government has already provided in the order of $3.2 billion through the Roads to Recovery Program—a program which has been very successful not only across Australia but throughout South Australia.
The member for Grayndler, on a point of order. State the point of order.
It goes to relevance. It was a very specific question about the supplementary funding—
Government members interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will pause for a second. I am trying to hear your point of order. I cannot hear your point of order due to the interjections of those on my right, particularly the minister for innovation. If I could hear your point of order.
It goes to relevance. The member for Mayo asked a very specific question about the supplementary funding, which was available for South Australia for years, that was cut by the coalition government. That is what she was asking to be restored.
The member for Grayndler has made his point of order. He can resume his seat.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House is delaying the House.
As I indicated to the member for Mayo, I would be very happy to meet with her and discuss any specific infrastructure issues of concern following the storms in South Australia. As I indicated, the local councils have received assistance through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. They also receive ongoing assistance through the $3.2 billion in the Roads to Recovery Program.
I also note that the Australian government made some commitments in the member's electorate during the election campaign. We were very pleased to announce, during the election campaign, in the order of $14 million for the upgrade of the Thomas Foods connecting route. I am sure the member supports that project, and I can assure her the Turnbull-Joyce government, which is committed to delivering every one of its promises made in the election campaign, will be delivering on that project in the seat of Mayo. This investment will allow for the upgrade of roads between Mount Barker and Lobethal to allow for B-double access and will improve the safety and efficiency of the heavy vehicle sector.
The member would be interested to know that this is a government which has committed in the order of $3 billion until 2020 in infrastructure in South Australia. We will continue to invest in the future of South Australia. In closing, I would like to acknowledge that the work we are doing between Darlington and Torrens, from Torrens to Torrens and on the Northern Connector will end up creating about 1,300 jobs in the South Australian community. So I look forward to working with the member for Mayo on her specific infrastructure needs and commend the— (Time expired)
Mr Speaker—
Opposition members interjecting—
It is nice to be popular, Mr Speaker! My question is to the minister for trade. Will the minister update the House on how the expanded Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement will support the government's plan for jobs and growth?
It is terrific to know there is such strong support across the chamber for such a pertinent question. Of course I want to also acknowledge the member for Warringah. In his then capacity as Prime Minister, he visited Singapore in June last year and was the catalyst of what we will be signing tomorrow around the comprehensive strategic partnership between Singapore and Australia. I also want to acknowledge my predecessor, the minister for trade, the Hon. Andrew Robb, who, together with the then Prime Minister, played a key role in the delivery of what we have put in place in relation to the strengthening of the comprehensive relationship between Australia and Singapore.
Drawing upon the comments that were made this morning by Prime Minister Lee, we can see that this relationship will form the bedrock of our strategic partnership going forward—that is, in relation not only to trade, services and investment but also to defence. What this government, together with the Singaporean government, has been able to achieve in taking forward the comprehensive strategic partnership between our countries is truly historic. As Prime Minister Lee pointed out in his address, the Singapore agreement, signed in 2003, was the second bilateral free trade agreement that Australia signed.
Our shared embrace of innovation and open markets builds on our close economic and diplomatic relations and contributes to the shared prosperity that our two nations enjoy. The Singapore-Australia relationship has continued to strengthen as we both embrace the opportunities of our growing region to ensure the creation of more jobs and a higher standard of living for both of our peoples.
At its very core, that is what drives the coalition government's national economic plan in relation to boosting job prospects for Australians and driving economic growth in this country. It is consistent with the groundwork that the coalition did when we undertook to put in place the free trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea, and we have once again delivered on that trifecta of agreements with the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
As Singapore is Australia's fifth largest trading partner and investor—with trade valued at over $25 billion in 2015—there is enormous potential that flows from this, especially for those in the services sector. It has been the services outcomes that have been particularly helpful for all Australians. The opportunities for our education providers, accountants, financial planners, lawyers and engineers to travel to Singapore and sell their services and the guarantees that it provides with access to lucrative Singaporean government procurement contracts will mean this relationship goes from strength to strength in the future. (Time expired)
We have a lot of visitors on this important day. I wish to inform the House we have three former members present in the gallery: the Hon. Jim Lloyd, former minister and former member for Robertson; Mr Peter Shack, former member for Tangney; and Ms Judi Moylan, the former member for Pearce. I extend a very warm welcome to the three of you.
My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday the chairman of CEDA said, 'There is no believable end to the deficit in sight.' He also said that revenue measures 'are the only realistic way to balance the budget quickly'. Does the Treasurer agree with this advice from CEDA, and why will the government not embrace negative gearing reform?
I thank the member for his question. This government does not believe that increasing taxes on the Australian economy is the way to grow jobs and to grow the economy. We do not think that is the answer. We think the answer is to drive investment in our economy by ensuring that we have competitive policies, whether on tax, competition policy, investment in innovation and science or our defence industry procurement plan, which builds the capacity of the Australian industry, builds the capacity of our economy, which drives jobs and growth in our economy.
That is why today we continue to press the opposition, demanding that they support small businesses in this country with turnover of up to $10 million a year who they think are Googles and Microsofts and all the rest of it. They are small businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million. They employ around 22, on average—and there are 2.2 million Australians who work in these businesses. Those opposite think the answer to the budget and the economic issues in this country is to tax those businesses more and to not provide them with the incentives to invest back in their business.
So, no: we do not agree with the opposition that the road to dealing with the budget issues is to increase taxes and increase the deficit as those opposite proposed at the last election. They said $16½ billion was the answer to the government's budget issues. They wanted to increase the deficit, increase the debt, increase the spending and increase the taxes. That is not a plan for jobs and growth; it is a plan to stay in opposition.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please update the House on how the government is moving to help employers to invest and grow their businesses? How will our proposals for small business and tax cuts for individuals help grow the economy and create jobs and higher wages for hardworking Australians?
I thank the member for Petrie for his question. He knows and he is back in this House because he was part of a government that had a plan to drive investment in our economy, to support more growth and more jobs. Today what has passed the parliament—in the Senate, in the other place—is the government's plan to relieve the tax burden on average working Australians with average full-time ordinary earnings. As of today 500,000 income tax payers will now get the tax relief that we put forward at the last election and has now passed through this parliament.
That is the sort of leadership that is needed to ensure that we have a tax system that energises Australians who are going out there and earning an income every day. The message they have received from this government is that we understand the work they do and the challenges they face and that wherever possible we will seek to relieve their tax burden. But we also want to provide that to small businesses in particular—and businesses more generally—who employ those Australians. The member for Petrie will know, because we visited the business together, about Bowmaker Realty, a father and son realty business in North Lakes in Queensland. They employ 22 people and they have clicked over $2 million in turnover. Those opposite want to say to them and to that business—that father and son business that employs 22 Australians, six of them just in the last 12 months—'We don't want you go grow, we don't want you to expand, we don't want you to have the sort of tax relief that enables you to put your new salespeople and your people who are out there managing your rent roll to be put in a new vehicle, we don't want you to have access to the instant asset write-off.'
We want them to have that, and that is why in our budget we have put that forward. Those opposite want to stand in the way of Bowmaker Realty and 100,000 other businesses that have a turnover of between $2 million and $10 million and say, 'No tax cuts for you!' They want to say, 'No tax cuts for small businesses in this country.' So it is no wonder that the chief executive of the Combined Small Business Alliance of Western Australia Incorporated, Oliver Moon, has written to the Leader of the Opposition and said that for small business the position taken by Labor on blocking the tax cuts for small business proposed by the government is, to say the least, reprehensible and portrays a perception of Labor being anti small business.
Well, it is not a perception. It is a hard and fast fact. That is why Tim Reed, the executive of MYOB, has said
I think they (Labor) have got it wrong and it’s actually shortsighted and shows a lack of understanding. Many businesses literally can’t afford to grow over $2m of revenue because the implications around that aren’t just the reduction in the company tax rate.
It goes to issues like depreciation and access to the instant asset write-off—all the things those opposite want to deny to small business, who want to grow. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's previous answer. Why is the Treasurer refusing to listen to CEDA, the Grattan Institute, the International Monetary Fund, Moody's and Standard & Poor's on the urgent need for revenue measures to get the budget back into balance and maintain Australia's AAA credit rating from the three ratings agencies?
The Turnbull government is not going to join the opposition's high-tax club. We are not going to be a part of the high-tax club which says to Australians that the path to prosperity is higher taxes, that somehow the path to growing the economy and supporting jobs is to have higher taxes.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The member for Lyons will cease interjecting.
What this country has to face—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The member for Lyons is warned.
is to grow our economy so we grow revenues. You grow small businesses into larger businesses. You ensure that Australians can increase their earning capacity, that companies can profit more, that wage earners can earn more on their wages. When you achieve economic policies that increase the earnings of Australians, that is how you raise your revenue. You do not do it by jacking up taxes like those and others have suggested.
What we have done on taxes is make sure that Australians pay their fair share of tax. We have made sure that multinationals will be paying their fair share of tax. We are the party that brought into this place legislation that now does make multinationals pay their fair share of tax—legislation that was opposed by all of them who were in the last parliament. And they still sit there today, opposing this government's measures to ensure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax. In the budget we went further, with the diverted profits tax, which will ensure that those seeking to divert and shift profits offshore will not be able to do that. They will face higher rates of penalty tax to ensure that multinationals operating in Australia are paying their fair share of tax.
For foreign investors, who are also investing in Australia, we now have a tax deed, which is a tax to major foreign investments in this country, which was applied by myself as Treasurer to ensure that if you sought to shift profits off Australian shores as a result of your investments you would not just face the full force of the new multinational tax anti-avoidance laws—you would also be facing a divestment of your asset, as well.
What did those opposite do on these issues, when they were there for six years? Absolutely nothing! What did they do in opposition, when the government brought forward measures to secure the integrity of the tax base? They voted against it.
My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. How will our enterprise tax plan proposals for small business and income tax cuts for individuals help grow the economy and create jobs and higher wages for the hardworking Australians of Dunkley and elsewhere?
I very much thank the member for Dunkley for his question. I am very pleased to say that the parliament today passed the government's legislation to provide a tax cut to around 3.1 million Australian taxpayers in 2016-17 by extending the third income tax bracket from $80,000 to $87,000. That will mean that over 500,000 average Australian full-time wage earners will now face a marginal tax rate of 32.5c in the dollar instead of 37 cents in the dollar, preventing them from moving on to the higher marginal tax rate.
In Dunkley this accounts for around 2,600 individual taxpayers, who will now have access to tax relief of up to $315 each year. On this side we believe in cutting taxes, rewarding initiative, rewarding hard work, growing the economy and creating jobs. We are doing exactly the same for small business. I know that, as the son of a small business owner, the member Dunkley feels this very keenly, and he is a strong advocate for the more than 16,000 small businesses in his community. He has very kindly taken me to visit a number of them. One such business was Hart Marine. Mal Hart employs 50 staff, mostly locals, and manufactures pilot boats. These are such great boats that they are exported overseas. Over 30 years in which he has owned the business he has employed more than 100 apprentices. His business has a turnover of less than $10 million, yet it is creating opportunity and local jobs and helping to grow our economy.
It is businesses like his, businesses that have a turnover of over $2 million but less than $10 million, that will benefit from the Turnbull government's enterprise tax plan, with cuts to the company tax rate to 27.5 per cent from 1 July this year. It is going to help his business and more than 870,000 businesses throughout the country. It will also give these businesses access to tax concessions, such as the instant asset write-off, which will help them to invest in their business.
But it is those opposite that stand in the way of these small businesses growing, that stand in the way of these small businesses employing and that stand in the way of growing our economy, because they are going to block this tax relief for small business and stop the growing of the Australian economy. Instead of listening to union boss mates over on that side, they should instead listen to the Council of Small Business of Australia, who said yesterday that the changes to company tax rates will deliver the best bang for the buck in terms of driving economic growth. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. It is now three years since this government took office. When will the government take responsibility for blowing out the 2015-2016 deficit by over eight times in that period? You have octupled it.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left, you have made your point. I think everyone has got the point. You can put your hands down now.
We are still waiting for the four years of surpluses that the member for Lilley apparently delivered. Apparently he delivered them all those years ago and I am trying to remember—where did I hear about those four budget surpluses that we announced tonight—all four of them. I remember reading about them in their newsletters. They announced them and went round their communities and talked about the surpluses they had provided—
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms Burney interjecting—
The member for Barton is warned. The level of interjections is far too high on both sides. I have cautioned members on my left—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. I have told him a number of times not to interject when I am addressing the House. He operates under the same rules as everyone else. I have given a warning to those on my left. I am warning those on my right. The level of interjections is far too high. If there is a continuation of it, members will be ejected from the chamber.
Since this government came to office in 2013, the level of nominal expenditure on payments by the government—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is warned.
which was set out in the 2013 PEFO—payments by the government—were $424.9 billion. That was the estimate for the 2015-16 year. The actual amount of payments in the 2016 PEFO was $425 billion. So this is a government that has ensured that we have controlled expenditure. Indeed, the budget that I handed down in May, based on the final budget outcome figures, will see expenditure as a share of the economy fall from 25.7 per cent to 25.2 per cent.
Those opposite are calling for higher taxes on the Australian people. There is a reason why they will not support the government's budget measures—it is because the government's budget measures—some $25 billion of measures—are overwhelmingly in the area of cutting and ensuring that government expenditure is brought under control. Those opposite will not show the discipline they need to get government spending under control as they allowed government spending to blow out to record levels on their watch, and they saw the deficit blowout and the debt blowout. They refuse to engage with the government on the serious job—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney, this is your final warning.
of fiscal budget repair—of getting government expenditure under control. So what do they do? They say, 'Don't worry about expenditure, just lift taxes on all Australians.' They say to lift taxes on police officers—one in five police officers use negative gearing just to ensure that they can build up a nest egg for their financial futures—or the nurses or the teachers or the Defence Force personnel. Those opposite say: 'No, we're not going to get expenditure under control. What we're going to do is jack up taxes on ordinary Australians.' Today, in this parliament, this government relieved taxes for ordinary, hardworking Australians. What we want to do is the same thing for the small businesses who employ them, and those opposite oppose it.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House on why it is crucial to have a strong and coherent position on important geostrategic and international security issues?
I thank the member for Brisbane for this important question. Coherence and consistency in what we say and do is how countries communicate and advance their interests in geostrategic and international affairs. Incoherence and inconsistency in foreign policy creates, at the very least, potential for mixed messages and miscalculation. The government's position, for example, on the South China Sea is clear and has been consistently articulated.
Yesterday I invited the Leader of the Opposition to show some leadership and end the confusion on where Labor stands on the South China Sea disputes. Instead, he only added to Labor's confusion. On the one hand Labor is calling on all parties to de-escalate tensions, but then it backs freedom of navigation operations within 12 nautical miles of disputed land features that would escalate tensions. Labor's shadow Defence minister said it is not appropriate for the Australian government to give orders to the military on such freedom of navigation operations. That is an extraordinary position roundly criticised by the former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating as 'shocking'.
Then the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Senator Wong, weighed in and said Paul Keating is 'completely right'. Then the Labor leader and former foreign affairs shadow minister contradicted the opposition Defence minister, claiming, 'It should be the government that determines whether a freedom of navigation operations are held.' But there is more. Then the Leader of the Opposition contradicted his deputy as well as the shadow foreign minister and Paul Keating by saying he was 'not going to start telling the military how to sail their ships'. All the while, he is refusing to confirm that it is Labor policy for the Australian Navy to sail within 12 nautical miles of contested features in the South China Sea.
The Leader of the Opposition has no idea whether he is escalating or de-escalating but, more seriously—and dangerously—he has no idea who is in charge of the Australian military. All members should reflect on this: the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the chain of command in a civilian government. I suggest you start with the Constitution. Seriously?
My question is to the Prime Minister. In July 2011 the Prime Minister said that 100 per cent of stationary energy will need to come from clean sources by the middle of the century. Prime Minister, what happened to you?
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley is warned.
After being verballed by the honourable member, let me address the issue of renewable energy. The objective—the obligation, in fact—that we have is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Paris treaty that was entered into last year and which we expect to ratify very shortly. As you know, they are very substantial reductions—26 per cent to 28 per cent by 2030 on a per capita basis, which is really the only reasonable means of comparison. They are the second highest in the OECD, so they are very substantial cuts on emissions.
Renewable energy—clean energy, if that is what the honourable member is referring to—plays a part in that. There are many other measures that play a part in all of that. It is a complex business, reducing emissions, as we know. The object of government policy is to do so at least cost. The Emissions Reduction Fund has been very successful, and we are well on track to meet our 2020 targets—indeed, to beat our 2020 targets. Only as recently as 2012 the Labor government was forecasting that we would miss our 2020 targets. In fact, we will beat them, I believe, by about 78 million tonnes, so the government's progress in this regard is going very well.
The important point honourable members have got to recognise is that if you turn these technologies into matters of ideology, if you turn them into matters of some kind of secular religion—if that is not a contradiction—or if you mythologise them, then you will mislead yourself and have the result of undermining energy security and affordability or, indeed, your path to emission reduction. These are engineering and technology issues. We know what we need to achieve and what his state has lamentably failed to achieve. We need to keep the lights on. We need energy to be affordable—not the most expensive in Australia, as it is in South Australia. And we need to meet our emissions reduction target. We need to achieve those three objectives. That is what the government's policy is all about. We are doing it, but we are doing it in a clear-eyed, hard-headed, rational manner. This is not an ideological issue; it is an engineering one. And we are approaching it pragmatically and effectively.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, dairy and horticulture are major industries in the Golden Valley region in my electorate of Murray. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on what measures the government has taken to support these vital industries, and is he aware of any threats to these industries?
I thank the honourable member for his question and note the importance of backpacker employment and labour in making sure that we harvest the permanent planning in the dairy industry. I note that it is incredibly important that we went into bat for the backpacker industry and backpacker labour. We now have a package coming forward with a 19 per cent tax. This is after consultation with 178 industry groups—welfare groups, unions and labour-hire companies. We invited participation from the general community and got over 1,700 submissions.
The announcement by the coalition of a 19 per cent backpacker tax has been welcomed by the National Farmers' Federation, the Queensland Farmers Federation, Grocon, the Northern Territory Farmers Association, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, the Australian Regional Tourism Network and the Western Australian Farmers Federation—just to name a few. We also see that Geoffrey Thompson—a stone fruit and apples company—who employ over 1,000 backpackers a season, right down to the Goodwill family, who employ four or five backpackers, are all wanting this to go—
The Deputy Prime Minister—
Does the member for Hunter have a point of order?
Yes. The Deputy Prime Minister—
No, you will state the point of order.
It is in anticipation of a ruling on standing order 77.
That does not apply.
No, the Deputy Prime Minister is discussing a new backpacker tax—
The member for Hunter will resume his seat. That was a frivolous point of order. It was an inventive try, but it was a frivolous point of order nonetheless.
You have to give the member for Hunter 10 out of 10 for trying to get a question in anyhow. It is as close as we will get.
Once upon a time the Labor Party actually supported a resolution on this. In fact, the members for McMahon, Hunter and Grayndler—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The member for Lyons has been warned. He is continually interjecting. He can leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Lyons then left the chamber—
I seem to get rid of one a day, so it is going well!
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is about to be next.
We have seen the members for McMahon, Hunter and Grayndler each personally saying that Labor will not countenance this uncertainty dragging on for another seven weeks, let alone seven months. Well, they could fix this in seven seconds if they wished to, because the people holding up this issue from being resolved now are the Australian Labor Party. The member for Bass, the member for Braddon and the member for Lyons—who is no longer here—have been taking farmers around this building, saying that they will see this issue resolved. But now who is holding it up? It is the Australian Labor Party. The other side are so good at playing politics. They are so good at creating a fight. They are not good at creating resolutions.
This is just like what those opposite are doing on the plebiscite. They just want the fight; they never want the resolution. The member for Maribyrnong might be wearing an orange tie, but he should get a gold tie for playing politics! Why don't they make the commitment right now? Why don't they make the commitment that they will support us in getting the backpacker tax finalised right now?
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the member for Warringah's comments that it is good to be popular. Given the Prime Minister's plebiscite is almost as unpopular as his government, when will he dump the member for Warringah's plebiscite and have a free vote on marriage equality?
The first government in our history to present a bill which will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage and marriage equality is our government. That bill is before the House now. We have taken that step. The Rudd government did not. The Gillard government did not. Previous governments have not done it, so we have done it. We have presented that bill. It provides a clear pathway. Everyone will get a vote on 11 February. If the polls which the honourable member presumably likes to read are to be believed, it will be carried overwhelmingly and so same-sex couples will be able to get married.
The honourable member objects to Australians being consulted by way of a plebiscite. Only a few years ago, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, advocated a plebiscite in the course of a meeting with the Australian Christian Lobby. He went to see them and he told them he supported a plebiscite. Indeed, only a year ago, the Greens party supported a plebiscite. They advocated for a plebiscite. So the two parties that promise they will steadfastly oppose this bill in the Senate are the Greens and the Labor Party, each of whom has advocated for a plebiscite.
It is a thoroughly democratic process. I understand the criticisms that can be made of it. We can all recognise them. But honourable members opposite have to recognise this fundamental reality: this is our government's policy. We took it to the election. We won the election. We are presenting this plebiscite bill in the House. We expect it to be passed in the House in the course of the next few days. Then it will be sent to the Senate, and we seek the support of the Senate. If the members opposite want to stop playing politics, if they want gay couples to get married, they should vote for the plebiscite. The road is open; the door is open. It is right there; it is 11 February. All they need to do is vote for it, but the reality is the Labor Party wants to play politics with this issue much more than they want same-sex couples to be able to get married. That is the truth. You are putting politics and your games ahead of the interests of same-sex couples.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the importance of Australia's strong and consistent border protection policies? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Forde very much for his question. Like all of my colleagues on this side, we are absolutely determined to make sure that we stare down people smugglers, because we do not want to see women and children drowning at sea. We do not want to see the people smugglers back in control of who comes to this country. When John Howard left office in 2007, there were four people, which included no children, in detention. When Mr Rudd, as Prime Minister, undid those policies that had stopped the people smugglers and put them out of business, thousands of people arrived. Indeed, 50,000 on 800 boats came on Labor's watch, and 1,200 people tragically drowned at sea. Labor has since apologised for that mess, but they have not learnt their lesson—even today they claim that, as a party, they have not got the act together. As I look opposite, there are still many people who are completely opposed to Mr Shorten and to the Labor Party policy, which they say somehow would continue the success of this government's policy on border protection.
I just remind the minister to refer to members by their correct titles.
Of course, Mr Speaker. The difficulty for Labor and for this weak Leader of the Opposition is that there are many people in his own ranks who are completely opposed to any policy which will keep our borders secure. There are three ways in which we have implemented success in this area of public policy. Firstly, we have turned back boats where it is safe to do so. Secondly, we have maintained temporary protection visas, and, thirdly, we have operated regional processing centres. These, absolutely, are the three deterrents that have stared down the threat of people smugglers. The new member for Braddon has proclaimed on social media that she is 'with Albo' in opposing boat turn-backs.
The minister will refer to members by their correct—
It is a direct quote, Mr Speaker.
If the minister is quoting, that is permissible.
The new member for Macquarie says she voted against turn-backs at the ALP conference and stated—
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House is interjecting while I am addressing the House, again. The Deputy Prime Minister looks like he is about to interject again, so he will not. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call on a point of order.
If it is in order to use words because they are quotes from Twitter, there is a lot, an extraordinary amount, that can be said about the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. That cannot be a reason that it is in order.
It would be helpful, as I have said to the minister and to everyone, to refer to members by their correct titles. It is much easier. Otherwise, you risk offending the chair unintentionally.
There are many other examples that we could use here, but the point is that people smugglers can smell a weak Labor leader miles away. They picked it in Kevin Rudd, they picked it in Julia Gillard and they see it every day in this bloke. If you cannot secure our borders, you cannot look the Australian people in the eye and say that you can provide security in this country. The problem at the last election was that Labor could not get their act together. They have not changed their ways since the Rudd and Gillard years—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned.
and all it has demonstrated is that this weak Leader of the Opposition remains a threat to the national security of this country.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister sought advice from his department about the current conflict between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, and does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Solicitor-General?
I thank the honourable member for his question and I am glad that he has taken up the cudgels for the member for Isaacs on what appears to be a legal difference of opinion between the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General. I have discussed it with my department and, indeed, my secretary. I have spoken to him about it, and the advice that we have is that the Attorney-General has consulted with the Solicitor-General in the manner that he has described in the submissions that he has made. The Attorney-General has my complete confidence, and I would refer—
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on my left!
The Attorney-General has my confidence.
And the Solicitor-General?
Absolutely. The Solicitor-General has my confidence too. Let us be quite clear about—
The Prime Minister will just pause for a second. The member for McMahon is warned. It was a very specific question. The Prime Minister is addressing both parts. The member for McMahon will not try and add to the question by way of interjection.
Both the Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Crown, and the Solicitor-General, the second law officer, are distinguished barristers. I have had the benefit of legal advice from both of them at different times, and I have confidence in the legal capacity and ability of each of them. We are very fortunate to have the benefit of their advice.
My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on how the Australian Federal Police are educating children about the risks they face online; how the government is helping to educate adults about the benefits of various technologies; and what young people see, say and do online, as well as challenges they may face and how to overcome those challenges?
I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. Last year the AFP alone, unfortunately, received more than 11,000 reports about online child exploitation. It is becoming increasingly important that we bridge the digital divide by educating parents, teachers and carers to be vigilant and to look out for dangers that may face their kids online. Predators can be very clever at exploiting young people online, so it is vitally important that we show the risks that our kids face, how they might be exposed to these risks and how we can go about minimising them. We also need to educate people about where to report problems.
Today, during Stay Smart Online Week I am pleased to have released the Australian Federal Police's ThinkUKnow annual report. ThinkUKnow is a vital initiative that demonstrates the commitment of the government and the Australian Federal Police to educating our children on how to say safe, respectful and resilient online. ThinkUKnow is free. It is an evidence-based cyber safety program that provides educational presentations to parents, carers and teachers, and students, across Australia. Over the past year dedicated volunteers have delivered more than one presentation every day of the year to more than 10,000 parents, carers and teachers. These sessions are delivered by a network of trained volunteers and are about the benefits and the challenges associated with different technologies. Over the past year state and territory police delivered ThinkUKnow presentations to more than 150,000 school students from years 3 through to 12, with students being educated on topics such as cyber bullying, sexting, online grooming and other inappropriate content.
The majority of state and territory police forces are partners with us in this program. It is Australia's first and only nationally delivered crime prevention program that is delivered through the police in conjunction with the private sector. As a result of the success of ThinkUKnow and the increased risk of younger children being exploited online, the government has expanded the ThinkUKnow partnership to begin educating children from, unfortunately, ages as young as eight. Given the ongoing success of the program, the AFP is working to further expand and develop presentations and information for Indigenous Australians, for culturally diverse communities and for Australians with a disability. I thank the AFP, their state and territory police partners and their industry partners in the ThinkUKnow program for the tireless work they have been doing in this area. It is important that we ensure that parents, carers and teachers understand the risks that our children do face in the online environment and that we do make a difference in teaching them to keep themselves safe. We are committed to this ongoing protection of our children online and to providing parents and carers with the information that they need particularly if they see that something has gone wrong.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are presented in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Services Act 1999, I present the annual reports for 2015-16 of the Department of Parliamentary Services and the Parliamentary Budget Office.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure of leadership in energy system modernisation.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
We rise very enthusiastically to talk about this matter of public importance, the government's failure of leadership in energy system modernisation. In opening, we reiterate how proud Labor is of its record in government on renewable energy. Over six years its record was extraordinary. We became under Labor, as a nation, one of the world leaders in renewable energy. Over our six years in government we went from a position of there being 7,400 households in Australia with solar panels on their roofs to 1.2 million—1.2 million households were freed from the shackles of the electricity grid; a democratic revolution. Wind power in Australia tripled over the course of our six years in government. We became a world leader in utility-scale deployment of renewable energy. In just 2013 we approved in government the largest PV solar farm in the Southern Hemisphere and the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere. Jobs in the renewable energy sector over a six-year period tripled—during a period including the global financial crisis jobs in this sector tripled. Unsurprisingly, carbon pollution levels from one of the most emissions intensive electricity sectors in the world started to reduce for the first time in history. In just one year, 2012-13, carbon pollution levels from the electricity sector, responsible for fully one-third of Australia's pollution footprint, went down by 7½ per cent. Unsurprisingly, billions of dollars of investment flowed into Australia through this renewable energy revolution. In 2013 the leading index on investment around the world in this industry, the Ernst and Young Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index, rated Australia as one of the top four destinations for renewable energy investment in the world—up with the powerhouses of China, the United States and Germany.
This government's record could not be more different if they tried—and they have tried very hard. Only two contributions have been seen in energy policy from this government—a regular refrain that coal is good for humanity, and attack after attack after attack on the renewable energy industry. They did not waste much time starting. In spite of the fact that the former Prime Minister, Prime Minister Abbott, promised at the 2010 and the 2013 election to keep the existing renewable energy target in place, after another infamous radio interview with Alan Jones—I do not know what Alan does to them when they go on air—Mr Abbott walked away from that six-year commitment of the Liberal Party and sought to abolish the renewable energy target.
Unsurprisingly, investment confidence collapsed. In just one year investment in this industry collapsed by 88 per cent and thousands of jobs were lost. We plummeted in the investor rankings—I know my friend the assistant shadow minister will talk about this. We went down to No. 39 as spenders in renewable energy. A country with the best renewable resources of solar, wind, wave, geothermal in the world, we plummeted to 39th!
We finally restored a bipartisan position around the renewable energy target. In the meantime pollution went up by five per cent in the electricity sector in just two years. Generation in brown coal, the heaviest polluting form of electricity generation, increased by 10 per cent under Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Turnbull. That was followed by a series of attacks on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA, which I am glad Labor has resolved. But still we have no renewable energy policy beyond 2020. To most observers, this simply boggles the mind: a country with the natural resources we have and with the mines and the innovative businesses we have which are ready to invest and ready to continue to push the envelope in efficiency and effectiveness of renewables technology. It boggles the mind that a government that talks about jobs and growth, a government that talks about innovation and a government that talks about being open for business has turned its back so squarely against this industry.
A wave of tens and tens of billions of dollars of investment and jobs is sweeping across the world, through every one of more than 150 nations with a renewable energy target. Last year, for the first time in history, investment in renewable energy exceeded the combined investment in coal power, gas-fired power, hydro power and nuclear power, and it will never be different. China built 50 gigawatts of renewable energy in 2014 and built another 50 gigawatts in 2015. For context, that is the size of Australia's entire electricity system. Last year we were fairly happy with the fact that we added one gigawatt of solar to Australia's electricity system. The United Kingdom, where the sun shines—as far as I can tell—three days a year, added four gigawatts. Such is the loss of investment confidence under this government in this industry.
People held out some hope that things would change with the change of Prime Minister. There was a great sense of hope, but there were some mixed signals. There was a backdown by the new Prime Minister on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Mr Turnbull praised South Australia as a leader in clean energy very openly during the election campaign, and we did finally reach an agreement over recent weeks to preserve the work of the Renewable Energy Agency. But the last fortnight for the Prime Minister has been a shocker—it has been a shocker.
What happened in South Australia was an unprecedented weather event—an unprecedented event. People will have seen the photos where the winds and the tornadoes tore down 23 extraordinarily large and robust steel transmission towers, tripping generation across the state. Now the Deputy Prime Minister gave us the benefit of his deep understanding of electrical engineering and meteorology. In the middle of the storm, while emergency services workers were still putting themselves in danger's way to protect the South Australian community, he decided that he would play some politics. There used to be a protocol that said you do not play politics while people are in danger's way and while the emergency services personnel and the army are still doing their work. I am sure the member for Wakefield will talk about his electorate. The Deputy Prime Minister gave us the benefit of his conspiracy theories; and it was all about intermittency; it was all about the wind blowing too hard for the wind generators to keep blowing.
Frankly, that is just rubbish. It has been made very clear by people who know even more about this thing than the Deputy Prime Minister, if that is possible to believe. After the delivery of the Energy Market Operator's report at the end of last week, the Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel said:
If you had a natural gas generator there, and the voltage was collapsing, and the frequency was collapsing, that natural gas generator would have taken itself off the grid just as rapidly as the wind farms had taken themselves off.
And AGL—which has the largest coal fleet in Australia and is not just a renewable energy company, said:
AGL has safely run its wind turbines in South Australia for the past eight years and is confident that when generation does not degrade the reliability of the electricity system.
This is just a premeditated attack by the Deputy Prime Minister on renewable energy and, given this man's approach to climate and energy policy for more than a decade, we should not be surprised.
The real concern though is that it was echoed by the Prime Minister. We have been alive on this side of the House to the challenges involved in our energy system: the need to decarbonise it; the need to ensure there is a good, orderly replacement of the coal fleet—which is frankly getting too old to continue to operate for much longer—and the challenge involved in generation becoming much more distributed. But this is an opportunity as well. Only in the last few hours, the Queensland government released an independent report about its renewable energy target for 2030, which the Prime Minister has described as 'unrealistic' and 'unachievable'. According to this report, that target would lead to $6 billion in new investment in that state and more than 6000 new jobs every year over the decade from 2020 with no impact on either the reliability of the system or prices. In saying that, it echoes the conclusions of the review panel that former Prime Minister Abbott set up to review the national renewable energy target.
Renewable energy is not just cleaner; increasingly it will be the cheapest form of electricity available and a form of electricity in which Australia has a competitive advantage. Bloomberg New Energy Finance released a report in recent weeks showing that the levelised cost of solar power in Australia is substantially lower than that of America, Europe, China and India. This government needs to recognise the transition is underway. The Deputy Prime Minister might not like it, but the transition is happening in any event. This government needs to shake off the ideology and sit down and apply its mind to some serious transition policy that secures Australia's energy system into the future.
I am very pleased to lead the discussion on this MPI on behalf of the coalition. Anyone thinking of investing in Australia or in South Australia would be particularly disturbed by the speech that they just heard from the member for Port Adelaide. Nowhere in the 10 minutes he spoke for did he address the problems of cost and reliability of energy. In his own state over the last few years, there has been a doubling of the households that have had their electricity cut off. The South Australian Council of Social Service's Executive Director, Ross Womersley, said about the increasing disconnections in South Australia:
We have the highest electricity prices in the nation in South Australia. We have the highest unemployment in South Australia …
They also have the highest renewable energy target and—surprise, surprise—they have the highest number of households that have had their electricity disconnected.
You wait until they privatise the state electricity network, mate.
I hear the member for Wakefield. What concern do you show for the constituents in your electorate that have had their electricity cut off? What do you say?
Plenty, plenty. I will get to you.
Your state has more electricity disconnections than any other state in the country. What do you say to households that have their electricity cut off that cannot cook their food or warm their house in winter? What do you say, member for Wakefield? What do you say to households who have had their electricity cut off and students cannot study at night and people cannot take a hot shower?
Doesn't that happen in New South Wales?
What do you say to them? Nothing. We hear a duck egg. This is what—
The member for Hughes will address comments through the chair and the members on this side will remain silent.
The importance of this debate goes to the cost and reliability of electricity. What was concerning about the contribution of the member for Port Adelaide is that he appears not to have even read the Australian Energy Market Operator's report. His comments show that he is in complete denial.
We know what happened in South Australia. South Australia is parasitic on the energy supply of brown coal from Victoria. We know that the interconnector that they have there is only able to handle about 600 megawatts. We know what happened during the event. Yes, the storms came through, but, seconds before they did, close to 300 megawatts of electricity from wind farms cut off instantly.
No, that's not true. It's just not true.
Through you, Deputy Speaker: the member for Wakefield obviously has not read the report.
I have read it. I've got it here.
I think you should read it, because that is exactly what it says.
You're a dill.
For anyone to draw a conclusion from this report when it clearly says that this is a matter still being investigated—
The member for Wakefield will withdraw.
I withdraw.
And the member for Wakefield is warned.
The member for Port Adelaide also went on about Labor's wonderful efforts in solar. Well, the Grattan Institute recently put out comments on Labor's 'wonderful' effort, and I will quote directly from the Grattan Institute report. The Grattan Institute are hardly on our side of politics. They said:
… lavish government subsidies … means that 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.
The member for Port Adelaide comes in here and boasts about that—'a mess that should not be repeated'!
Looking at the cost of renewable energy, if the member for Wakefield is right and the costs are lower, that is absolutely fantastic because that means that we do not need the RET. We do not need any subsidies if the member for Wakefield is right.
The member for Port Adelaide, at his heart, is a central planner. He wants to control what form of energy should be generated in this country. We see the absolute unmitigated disaster that that has caused in his state. Only today, Manufacturing Australia has released a statement about how energy policy failures threaten manufacturing and threaten jobs:
Last month's power outage in South Australia was extremely damaging for manufacturing in that state.
It follows previous incidents in South Australia this year that have led to both supply outages and extremely high energy prices.
The lack of stability and high power prices in South Australia are threatening both existing and future manufacturing investment in a state already reeling from automotive closures.
We have a high standard of living in this country. We are able to afford hospitals, schools, roads, infrastructure and aged care. The expenditure that we are able to put out is the envy of many places in the world. The reason we can do that is that one of the great competitive advantages that our nation has is the low cost of energy. But the policies of the Labor Party threaten that very competitive advantage and they threaten the wellbeing and prosperity of our country. We must have a low-cost energy base if our country is to go forward. We need to look at all options for energy. Labor's 50 per cent renewable energy target would require close to 5,000 new wind turbines across the nation at a sum that Bloomberg calculates at over $40 billion. That is almost $2,000 for every Australian citizen. What would it achieve? It would simply achieve higher energy prices. We would see more Australians having their electricity disconnected and we would see more and more Australians jobs sent offshore as a result of this crazy and uncosted policy.
When we think about energy modernisation in the future, it is worthwhile looking at the figures from the International Energy Agency. They have done some calculations about where we stand in relation to the world supply of energy for solar and wind. Their 2015 report had solar's contribution to the total supply of global energy at not one per cent but 0.1 per cent—one-tenth of one per cent. And yet, if we invest billions and trillions of dollars worldwide and follow the plans of the Paris agreement, they estimate that by the year 2040 solar energy generation will be at 0.7 per cent of the world's energy supply. That is their estimate. Wind is currently 0.4 per cent of the world's energy supply. Less than one-half of one per cent of the energy generated in 2013 was generated by wind. If we go down the track of this renewable energy target and roll out tens of thousands of wind turbines around the country, where will that have us by the year 2040? The International Energy Authority give us the numbers. They estimate we will get to 1.7 per cent of the world's energy supply.
Whatever we do in this area, we must put energy security of the nation first, and we must make sure that we are providing all Australians with low-cost, affordable and abundant energy—that the lights are not going to turn out. We need to do it for households, and we also need to do it for industry. If we are going to have a prosperous future and if we are going to make any attempt at bringing our budget back to surplus and having the revenue base to pay for all the things that we do, we must maintain our competitive advantage in energy.
Nothing symbolises the complete abandonment of climate change and energy policy by this government better than the fact that the first speaker for the government was the member for Hughes. I sat in this chamber only two years ago and witnessed a speech where the member for Hughes said that taking action on climate change increases cancer in Western Sydney.
It does! Do your research!
The member for Hughes.
This is the calibre of the government's energy spokesperson. This is a man who denies the science of climate change, based on the fact that he read diary of Watkin Tench, a First Fleet officer, which recorded that it was hot when the First Fleet landed in 1788. The scientific basis for the government's energy policy is that a First Fleet officer said it was hot in January in Sydney. Stop the presses! This is the calibre of the government. What a pity, what an absolute shame and disgrace, that not only is the member for Hughes their first speaker, he is also chair of the government's backbench committee on environment!
Suck it up!
He is a man who denies the science of climate change, a man who draws false links around climate change causing cancer. This is the great tragedy of the government, the great tragedy of the great pretender, the Prime Minister, who has abandoned every single conviction he had on climate change. And what is the cost of this?
What's the cost?
The member for Barker and the member for Hughes.
Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know that 60 per cent of the world's solar PV cells are based on technology developed at the University of New South Wales, in the member for Kingsford Smith's fine electorate? Yet, because of the obstinacy and the stone-age thinking of the Howard government, we got very few jobs out of it, despite our world-leading expertise. Sadly, it is being repeated now by the Turnbull-Joyce government. The government's absolutely stone-age thinking on renewable energy is leading us down the same path. As the shadow minister talked about before, we have fallen from fourth to 39th in investment in clean energy. We have been overtaken by paragons of clean energy investment like Myanmar. For example, our clean energy investment is one-fifth that of Mexico, who are ninth on the league table. The great pity of this is we will miss out on jobs, we will miss out on a future for our kids, and we will see a much higher cost of transitioning our economy.
We have 27 gigawatts of coal-fired generation in this country, and the fleet is getting very old. In Victoria the average age of that coal-fired generation is 40 years. In New South Wales it is 34. We desperately need to see retirement of some of that capacity. But, because of the stone-age thinking of the government, it will not be replaced by clean energy that has been developed here, will provide jobs here and will allow us to transition our economy. What will happen is we will see delays, we will see a higher cost to the government, and our kids and our grandkids will bear that cost. If you have look at every single industrial revolution in our globe's history, the truth is it was the countries that developed the technology that took the greatest advantage of it, whether it was steam power and textiles in Britain, whether it was chemicals and steel in Germany and the United States or whether it was electronics in Japan and the United States. It is the countries that develop the technologies that are best placed to take advantage of those industrial revolutions, but because of the Luddites opposite, led by the Prime Minister, we will not take advantage of it.
The great tragedy is that it could be very different. Only as late as 2011, now Prime Minister Turnbull professed a need for us to decarbonise the energy sector to make it a net zero emitter by 2050. He has completely abandoned it in a dirty deal with the hard right of the Liberal Party, with the Luddites of the National Party, with the Joyce-Christensen government that keeps him in power. He stays in power by selling out every single principle. And it is not just the Liberal Party that will suffer—it will be our kids and our grandkids—as we fail this nation. This needs a serious debate. We are taking it up, and all we are getting is denial from the member for Hughes and the Prime Minister.
It is a great pleasure to get up and speak on this motion and, particularly, to talk about leadership.
You're from Victoria! You should know better!
The member for Lalor.
When it comes down to it, the type of leadership that our opponents would like to follow is the leadership of South Australia, and particularly Jay Weatherill. You, our opponents, want us to follow the leadership of Jay Weatherill, where you have the lights turned down because you cannot keep them on, because you do not place any value on energy security, investment in the sector and making sure that we have energy for the 21st century.
When you look at what actually happened in South Australia, where they have a 20 per cent renewable energy target, when they had the recent blackout, we had mobile phones going out, we had lights turned off, and we had people who had to sleep in lifts. The ALP vision for energy security in this country is reminiscent of North Korea, not of the rest of the Australian mainland. This is the problem with the ideological approach of the Australian Labor Party today. They are not actually interested in delivering for people or putting people first. They are interested in pursuing an ideological goal that has no sense of understanding or awareness about what ordinary Australians need.
Look at what people need. They need stability and certainty in the energy network. They need security of supply. As my good friend the member for Hughes rightly pointed out, what they also need is to be able to afford energy. People might remember the recent AEMO report that talked about the problems in South Australia's energy supply in the recent blackout.
Members opposite might like to take the time to go and read a report they produced only a few months ago. AEMO produced a report that highlights that one in four families find it difficult to keep the lights on, to be able to pay electricity bills. The people who are worst affected are lower-income households, the people they claim to represent. What a farce. When it comes down to it there are so many people across this country who are struggling to make ends meet—even people in my electorate of Goldstein, where you get pensioners who have to deal with the consequences of energy poverty. Their solution is to make it worse—increase prices and make it harder for them to afford to pay their bills. But it is not just that—it is not just an issue directly around price. It has a flow-on effect to jobs—those young aspirational people who want economic opportunities in their lives.
I would like to draw your attention to a report that recently came out from Manufacturing Australia. Their press release on 11 October states specifically:
Last month's power outage in South Australia was extremely damaging for manufacturing in that state.
… … …
The lack of stability and high power prices in South Australia are threatening both existing and future manufacturing investment in a state already reeling from automotive closures.
That is the future they want to project—one where people cannot afford power and industry has a shutdown to achieve their ideological objectives.
It is not just that. Then there is the Australian Energy Council. The list of groups complaining about Labor Party policy continues to go on. In their press release today, the Australian Energy Council said:
Transforming the Queensland electricity system will require a multi-billion dollar investment over decades. It's not magic. This will have to be paid for either by consumers or Queensland taxpayers.
That is the cost of going down this ideological approach. It pushes the cost onto those who can least afford it and onto the taxpayer overall.
The Australian Energy Council press release states further:
Policies that directly intervene in commercial decisions risk undermining investor confidence and will not attract the necessary investment in new generation.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in a press release yesterday said:
… use of these intermittent energy technologies impacts on the National Electricity Market, so we need a national approach.
But that is not the one they are prosecuting—the ideological one where they look at how to increase the amount of renewable energy in the market, without any sense of understanding about the cost or the impact on ordinary Aussies.
ACCI further said:
State-based renewable energy targets can confuse and distort the national market, driving up costs for consumers without necessarily improving environmental outcomes.
Some states have announced aspirational targets without making clear how these targets will be met …
And that is what they are talking about. Big boasts and no delivery. (Time expired)
On Wednesday, 28 September, I was sitting in my house in the Barossa Valley and we prepared for the storm, because you saw on Facebook and on the news reports that there was this gigantic whether event heading towards South Australia. It was pretty clear that it was going to cause some disruption to community life. So, there I was and at around 5 o'clock the power went out so we lit the combustion heater and settled in for the night. We did not lose mobile coverage straight away, so there I was sitting on Facebook and I noticed that Senator Xenophon had basically given the government of South Australia about 45 minutes of blackout before he came out and blamed wind farms. There he was, running at record speed—he must sprinted to the Canberra studio from wherever he was in Canberra—straight into the arms of Chris Uhlmann to say that it was the fault of wind farms. He put the finger on the wind farms. You have to say that there was no interest in the evidence and no interest in rational inquiry. He rushed to judgement. Why? Basically, to get his head on the TV, because that is all he cares about—being part of the media cycle, dominating the media cycle. So, there was Senator Xenophon and his new conservative party, the Nick Xenophon Team, absolutely rushing to judgement.
The Liberals had a choice at this point. The Prime Minister could have been a statesman and could have done what was standard operating procedure for a weather event, which is what this was. He could have come out in support of the emergency services workers, the utility workers who were still out there in the weather trying to connect power, the volunteers, the army and the community, and basically suspended partisan politics to clear the airwaves for disaster related messages. That is what you should do—leave it to the premier and the emergency services minister to conduct the emergency end of what was a very serious weather event in South Australia.
Instead, the Liberals, Senator Birmingham, Mr Barnaby Joyce, Mr Josh Frydenberg, the Prime Minister and others all followed the pied piper of South Australia down this sort of wormhole of blaming renewable energy. That is why we have this ridiculous debate going on in the public about whether it was a wind farm or renewable energy, like solar—at least the member for Hughes had the courage to mention solar. Most of the others did not blame solar, because they know it is popular. What does the actual report of the energy regulator say? It says:
The weather resulted in multiple transmission system faults. In the short time between 16:16 and 16:18, system faults included the loss of three major 275 kV transmission lines north of Adelaide.
Mr Kelly interjecting—
As the member for Hughes says, it then goes on to talk about the wind generation disconnection. It says:
The uncontrolled reduction in generation resulted in increased flow on the main … interconnector—
At Heywood—
to make up the deficit.
This resulted in the Heywood Interconnector overloading. To avoid damage to the interconnector, the automatic-protection mechanism activated, tripping the interconnector. In this event, this resulted in the remaining customer load and electricity generation in SA being lost (referred to as a Black System).
The member for Hughes is warned.
Then it goes into the restoration of the power. This is the report. It is quite clear what happened: no storm; no blackout. It is that simple. Whatever issues there may be in generation—which are faced by electricity grids around the world—we know there is a solar and battery revolution coming down the track whether you like it or not, member for Hughes, because the world is going to move on without you. You can be in this chamber, sprouting your ridiculous, inane ideology until the cows come home, but this is coming down the system.
We could have been having a civilised, non-partisan debate about how to handle a weather emergency, and we could have been having a civilised, rational debate about the electricity grid, but, unfortunately, what we are having is a debate with the member for Hughes, who, just by us all being in the room with you, makes us more stupid because we have to listen to you. You are that demeaning to this parliament. You mislead this parliament with your stupid ideology, and I have to say(Time expired)
Mr Pasin interjecting—
What does he want me to withdraw?
The unparliamentarily comment which you made about 10 seconds before you sat down.
Which one? The one where I said he is stupid?
The member for Wakefield will withdraw.
I withdraw the word 'stupid'.
I suppose stupid is as stupid does, but in any event—
Opposition members interjecting—
I will withdraw it—he did open himself up to it, with respect. What we saw on 28 September in South Australia was the triumph of ideology over reality. What the member for Wakefield and I share in common, and I do not think we share a lot of things in common, is that we are proud and parochial South Australians. I do not think either of us wants to see the lights out. I do not think either of us wants to deal with the kinds of jokes and quips that I am sure he got from his interstate colleagues, as I did.
The Prime Minister, in this chamber, not an hour ago, put this debate into context. He said that the people of Australian want us to ensure that the lights are kept on—that is a pretty basic requirement—that electricity is affordable and, in what is—as the member for Wakefield correctly points out—a carbon constrained future, we will need to do it in a way that ultimately reduces emissions.
What I want to talk about is the fact that electricity in my state of South Australia is now at historical highs. The member for Port Adelaide will not disagree with me. We are at historical high levels. It is now, effectively, in the long-term average, twice the cost of electricity in Victoria and twice the cost of electricity in New South Wales. How does that affect average, ordinary constituents in my electorate of Barker? As you heard me say in the party room, I spent my formative years moving water pipes around our irrigation property alongside my father and brother. To be fair, I think it is as noble a profession as this one, but do you know what it does? It gives me empathy with the horticulturalists in my electorate in the Riverland. As such, I receive their Central Irrigation Trust newsletter.
The Central Irrigation Trust is an authority that is responsible for managing, as members on this side heard in the party room, infrastructure to ensure water is taken from the mighty Murray River to properties, and, obviously, electricity is a significant component of this. I thought I would read from their newsletter: 'The CIT believes it is important that it alert its customers to the likelihood of significant water price increases impacting on the 2017-18 financial year as a result of increases in electricity generation costs.'
The newsletter says the CIT—a fairly conservative organisation not prone to hyperbole—recently renewed its pumping station energy contract for the coming 12 months. It continues: 'This contract, unfortunately, is $1.3 million higher than we paid in 2015-16 and $600,000 more than we anticipated. Whilst the CLAT has reviewed its 2016-17 budget to mitigate where possible the cost increases, should retail electricity prices remain at current levels in 2017-18, there will be no option but to increase water consumption prices between 15 and 30 per cent to recover the increased costs.'
'What the heck,' you might think, but these are the people that put fruit and vegetables on your table. These people are operating in a regulatory requirement in South Australia—thanks to Jay Weatherill—which is not only the highest cost, in terms of regulation, not only the highest taxing environment, but they now need to face electricity prices that are twice the cost of states like New South Wales and Victoria. Do you know who pays for that? The consumer pays for that. If we come into this place and want to talk about cost-of-living pressures, let us have a real think about cost-of-living pressures. Your vegetables will be more expensive. Your milk will be more expensive.
On the night of the blackout, I was eating in the Murray Bridge Hotel. We were by candlelight, and I received a phone call from a distressed dairy farmer. Have a listen to this. This is someone who is dealing with commodity prices that are putting him out of business, and because of the blackout he could not milk. Do you know what that does? That means he gets one less milking this month. Less money. He is more likely to have to walk off that property. And why?
It is because—
An opposition member interjecting—
Those opposite can keep laughing about it if they like. He is going to walk off that property because you are driving up the cost of electricity. The member for Port Adelaide is running defence for Jay Weatherill. It will not save him, mate. He is gone.
I was born and bred in Townsville in North Queensland. When Cyclone Yasi—a category 5 cyclone—hit our north coast in 2011, numerous houses were destroyed, phone lines were down, and people were without power for weeks. During that time, not one member of the coalition came out and blamed the coal industry for the power outages. So why is this government so set on creating the renewable energy bogeyman, even though experts agree the statewide blackout was the result of a massive storm inflicting large amounts of damage to transmission infrastructure? No-one blamed the coal industry for the severe damage Cyclone Yasi caused, and no-one should blame the renewables industry for the damage in South Australia. Instead of showing true leadership during a very difficult time for South Australians, the government chose to scaremonger. The coalition have been at war with the renewable energy industry for many years now. They fail to understand the importance of the term 'transition'. The term itself does not mean that we leave one industry behind, but rather have a plan to move successfully into the future.
This balance is imperative when it comes to Queensland, where terrific things are being achieved when true leadership is shown. We are seeing a completely new industry being brought to Queensland with the Palaszczuk government's mandate on biofuels. Through this initiative, we are seeing our sugarcane farmers in the Burdekin region branch out into new crops. But it has become very clear that this government has no plan for the future, has no ability to adapt and will continue to bury its head in the sand when it comes to sustainable energy in the future. The government says it wants a national approach to renewable energy but refuses to provide any support to renewable energy post 2020. The government says it wants harmonised renewable targets post 2020 but is only willing to contemplate targets of zero.
Just two weeks ago, the federal resources minister, Matt Canavan, called renewable energy targets 'certifiably mad'. He said:
The Queensland Government may as well promise to build an alpine skiing resort in North Queensland. That has more chance of happening than Labor’s renewable energy target.
Minister Canavan, as the only one of the two of us who actually resides in North Queensland and is proud to be a North Queenslander, let me tell you that this target is real and achievable.
Today, the Queensland government released their independent task force report on their 50 per cent renewable energy target. This government should be interested to learn the expert panel concluded the 50 per cent target is economically and technically feasible—not 'extremely unrealistic', as the Prime Minister has previously stated. Further, it will not negatively impact electricity security, and it will create over $6 billion of new investment and over 6,000 jobs by the year 2030. This is the future the Turnbull government rejects. I am not saying in this place today that we will leave one industry behind. We cannot currently leave our mining industry. But we are currently a transitioning economy, and there needs to be room for both industries and a clear plan for the future.
It is very well known that Central Queensland and North Queensland are rich with minerals. We have mines in Mount Isa and Collinsville and, until recently, we had Queensland Nickel. However, our largest untapped resource is our glorious sunshine. On average, Townsville has sunshine on around 360 days of the year. We have so much sunshine in Townsville that we are colloquially referred to as 'Brownsville'. Our sunshine has the ability to create thousands of new jobs and bring investment to our region. Just last week, Sun Metals released plans to invest $460 million over the next five years in the region, which will involve the construction of a 100-megawatt solar farm designed to power the refinery and sell electricity to the grid. It will also include a second stage of expanding Sun Metals's Townsville refinery, using cutting-edge technology to provide a 25 per cent increase in zinc production.
Only a Labor government has the vision and history to deliver a sustainable future. Under Labor, renewable energy boomed and Australia rose to one of the four most attractive destinations for global renewable energy investment, along with China, the US and Germany. It is a very different story under the Liberals. These are issues Labor take very seriously, and we are continuing to work on detailed policy to meet our challenges: clean energy transformation, energy security and a just transition for workers and communities. That is why we have a policy to invest in the latest renewable and other technologies, to achieve a target of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030, to plan for the orderly closure of the dirtiest and oldest coal power stations and to achieve a just transition for workers and communities. Only Labor have a true commitment to the renewable energy industry.
I am not surprised that the member for Port Adelaide has brought forward the issue of energy, particularly in South Australia, in this place. South Australia has suffered some terrible losses in the last two weeks and continues to suffer losses today as some of our biggest employers and the bigger users of electricity remain out of production. In that case, I mention BHP up at Roxby Downs, Nyrstar at Port Pirie and I think OZ Minerals at Prominent Hill is still struggling to get back on line.
But I am surprised that he has fallen into the trap of protecting Tom Koutsantonis and the state government. Muhammad Ali used to have a method when he was in the boxing ring; it was called 'rope a dope'. Tom Koutsantonis has certainly found his here in the federal parliament, because they are, in fact, defending the indefensible. This team in South Australia is going down. They will be judged on their poor management of the South Australian electricity system. They will be judged on the fact that they ignored the warnings that have come over time about what would happen in South Australia if they drove the base load generators out of business before they reached a stage where the renewable energy sector was able to supply a stable and fully reliable load.
Australia has a very good target for renewable energy; it is 23 per cent by 2020. It was only in the second half of last year that the Labor Party in this place supported that new target. But they seem to have a different target now. I think that, during the election, I heard it was about 50 per cent. So there you go. They did not stay with that target for all that long.
This is 23 per cent for all of Australia's energy users. But in that time the South Australian government has targeted investment in this area—and you could say, 'That's well and good'—to the point where we have 41 per cent of our electricity load, on average, now being delivered by wind. Some would say that is very smart of the state government, but they have not heeded the warnings about the instability in the grid, the frequency becoming variable, if you like. It is like having thin electricity: it is not always there when you need it. And so many of our industries and our households need reliable electricity.
It is all very well to move to renewable energy, and I support the moves to renewable energy. But they have to insist on storage. There are mechanisms, there are some technologies coming onstream at the moment, and there are a couple of projects that are looking at investing in my electorate. The federal government is doing a powerful amount to ensure that these investments come off, particularly through the renewable energy target. I think they offer some possibility for the future. But we cannot expect to attract new investment to South Australia. We cannot expect people like BHP to continue to reinvest in South Australia when, as the member for Barker has just pointed out, our electricity prices in the last six months have doubled. Our wholesale electricity prices in South Australia in the last six months have in fact more than doubled. For the householder, over the next 12 months this will mean that they are likely to face increases of around 15 to 20 per cent in their electricity bill. It will take them from around 30c a kilowatt hour to around 35c or 36c. That is going to be pretty tough to wear, particularly for people on low incomes.
You can imagine: these high-end energy consumers that actually buy at a small marginal rate above the wholesale cost—maybe 8c or 9c a kilowatt hour—are likely to see, because of that shift, an 80 per cent increase in their cost of electricity. In fact, they already have. If a business like Nyrstar or like BHP that buys electricity not in the millions but in the tens of millions of dollars a year faces an 80 per cent increase on the bottom line or an 80 per cent increase in electricity bills, we have a serious problem—they have a serious problem. If we want industries to keep investing in South Australia, that needs to be addressed. It is a crisis point at the moment. I suspect that there will be a severe backlash for the South Australian government for mismanaging this transition. (Time expired)
Around two weeks ago I paid a visit to an old schoolfriend and her mum on a Saturday evening. This friend has been living in London for 10 or 15 years but had flown back to care for her mother, who was in late-stage cancer. It was both a sad and a happy occasion. It was just as the storm had been raging for a couple of days. My friend's mum and I had a special bond. When my friend and I were at high school her mum actually used to try to set me up with her daughter as a future wife. It was not to be. Her name was Wendy, the same as my mum's name. So we always had a special bond, and I was very sad to receive a text message late last week saying that she had passed away. But it was lovely to spend that evening with her and the family. She was a feisty woman. She had been a teacher, a pioneer for equal pay for women teachers, and she used to be a Liberal voter, early in her life, until that equal pay stuff came to pass. But she was a very fair woman from middle Australia and always had a great interest in politics. She turned the conversation, as we were sitting there, to Malcolm Turnbull, and she used our time to express her profound disappointment as she, like many of us, had hoped for better.
I confess to the House that I, in my time as a public servant, out of politics, actually quite liked the Prime Minister. I used to not dislike him when I heard him on the radio. He often made sense, and you would sometimes—I know it is heresy!—find yourself nodding, thinking, 'Yeah, okay: that kind of makes sense; I can go along with that.' Or maybe he just was not as completely gross as many of his colleagues. But when we were talking, I said to my friend's mum that each side gets a turn, and you hope that they stick to their convictions and do some good things for the country. But she expressed to me her bitter disappointment at his failing prime ministership and how in her view, being a student of politics, he had sold out all of his core beliefs. She touched on marriage equality, education, the environment and the republic, and she summed it up as perhaps someone with the clarity and wisdom of a dying person can do: 'Julian, we are not seeing his policies; we are seeing his character.'
In my view, the Prime Minister has surrendered to the extremists in his party on every issue he ever believed in—or said he believed in. Energy security and renewable energy are, sadly, no exception. Australians have every right to be deeply and bitterly disappointed. You may remember the quote from the current Prime Minister, who said that he would not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as he is, or the more pontifical quote:
Now you can look at the targets, 50 per cent the common sort of rubric rule of thumb is to cut emissions by 2050 … I promise you, you cannot achieve that cut, you cannot achieve it without getting to a point by mid-century where all or almost all of our stationary energy, that is to say energy from power stations and big factories and so forth comes from zero emission sources.
We heard about his praise for South Australia's renewables during the campaign. We heard about his time as the environment minister, preaching about technology and renewables and how these things can provide base load power. We thought we had a new style of politics—intelligent, reasonable leadership, thoughtful and evidence based.
I am new here; this is my third week. I was actually quite stunned in question time on Monday when the Prime Minister was asked a simple question—we were all here: 'What is the government's policy to support renewable energy projects after 2020?' And he had no answer—no commitments, no policy, no targets, no plan—zip. He waffled for a bit, then he chucked to the Minister for the Environment and Energy.
I went to university with the Minister for the Environment and Energy, and he is a very lovely guy. We have a lot of mutual friends. He is perfect for the modern Liberal Party, because he does not really believe in anything in particular. So, he is perfect for this portfolio. He came into parliament, as the Victorians would know, as sort of a wet Lib—fairly progressive—but now he has tacked to the right, so who knows where he will end up.
But to summarise the points that have been made: this is not a new thing. This has been generated by the storm. The storm, however, is just the latest excuse in an ongoing ideological war—the irony of being lectured about ideology by those opposite!—on renewable energy. They tried to abolish the target. And I will finish by talking just briefly about investment stability and certainty. We heard a lot about investment stability and how we need certainty for industry to invest. We agree that industry needs confidence to invest, and certainty. And Labor compromised. There is no shame in difficult compromise. We took a hard decision to compromise and provide that certainty for industry in the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. For reasons of energy security, climate change and the economy, in terms of new investment and jobs, we deserve better. We look forward to seeing the government sitting down and engaging in a rational debate, not pursuing their rabid ideology against renewable energy.
I proudly rise to speak on this matter of public importance and in support of this government's leadership and initiative in the space of energy systems modernisation in this country. When talk about the Australian energy market, we have to remember that it was this coalition government, back in 2001, who first introduced the Renewable Energy Target. Back then, our renewable sectors only contributed eight per cent of our entire energy market. Today, with our government's initiatives in both clean energy and research and development, we have increased renewable electricity supply to 15 per cent. The coal industry used to provide 80 per cent of our overall electricity market; today it has fallen to 60 per cent. By 2020 the renewables market will have increased more than 23 per cent, an ambitious but achievable target.
The opposition seems to take issue with this government taking the reins and delivering outcomes that marry up not only on our international obligations in transitioning to a low emissions future, but are also economically viable and, more importantly, are actually delivering responsible, reliable and efficient energy to all Australians.
Recent events in South Australia demonstrate the case for a pragmatic approach to modernising our energy systems and balancing the pace at which we transition our energy markets. We must be doing our job, because the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Energy Council, Manufacturing Australia and the Grattan Institute all support this government's approach in providing stable, reliable and affordable energy. I am pleased to note the significant investment by this government through ARENA's grant funding as a key measure of support for the renewable energy industry, in particular Australia's large-scale solar PV industry, and facilitating our government's ability to meet that target.
In fact, in my rural electorate of Maranoa in Queensland, an electorate covering more than 42 per cent of the state, we have more than enough access to the sunshine. ARENA recently announced large-scale solar PV funding for 12 projects, two of which are in my electorate and are expected to commence construction as early as December this year.
The first is a $21 million investment in the Darling Downs Solar Farm in the southern part of my electorate, which will be constructed by Origin Energy in Dalby and will not only generate 110 megawatts of solar energy, but will deliver 550 new jobs to the Dalby community. The second is a $1.3 million support to the Longreach solar farm in the central west of my electorate, which will generate 15 megawatts of power and provide around 75 new jobs to the community of Longreach, a community significantly impacted by drought. Not only do we have these two projects ready for construction, we currently have a large-scale solar farm of 90 hectares in Barcaldine also underway in the central west of my electorate, where the energy generated will provide energy for more than 5,300 homes.
These projects are invaluable to the future development and modernisation of the solar industry in regional and rural Australia. The work that is being undertaken here will provide invaluable information on developing large-scale solar in areas located on the fringe of electricity grids, areas which can be disadvantaged by power outages brought about by network constraints, and of course the need for further infrastructure.
I think the opposition needs to convene with their state counterparts and reiterate the importance of a harmonised national approach between the state and federal governments to meeting our renewable energy targets. For example, this government is committed to reducing our emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030, a target which is responsibly based on 2005 levels, and we remain on target to meet and beat our 2020 emissions reduction target by 78 million tonnes.
But in my home state the Queensland government has set a renewable energy target of 50 per cent by 2025. We know, and the federal Department of Environment and Energy has found, that the impact of the Queensland state government's target will be absolutely detrimental to the people in my home state, from the family households to farmers and other small businesses, community groups and organisations and larger enterprises in Queensland. If that irresponsible Renewable Energy Target remains in place, the Queensland state government will have to answer for their role in causing extreme electricity cost to Queenslanders, particularly those who are least able to afford it. If any government fails to consider the budget in this process, there will not be any money to provide supplements or compensation to anyone impacted by exorbitant electricity prices. Responsibly managing a diversifying renewable energy market means working with mother nature and our state and territory counterparts to provide efficient and effective primary and secondary energy sources.
The discussion has concluded.
I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Williams has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network and Senator Hanson has been appointed a member of the committee; Senator McCarthy has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Senator Brown has been appointed a member of the committee; and Senator Lines has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth and Senator Watt has been appointed a member of the committee.
I move:
That order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
Before I call the honourable member for Tangney, 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 great honour that I stand in this place as the seventh member for Tangney having sworn an oath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. I will repay the faith of the people of Tangney by working hard, by being honest and up-front and by representing my community to the very best of my ability. Not everyone will always agree with the positions I take in this place, but they will always be considered based on my values and in our national interests.
The strange thing about maiden speeches is that they are more often read as you leave this place than when you enter. So, with this in mind, I will set out the basis of how I would like to be judged when I leave this place. I want people to be in no doubt about why I am here. I am here for the hardworking, aspirational Australians who want to apply their own effort and succeed. I am here to help build an Australia that empowers people—an Australia that rewards individual and community effort. I am here to create an Australia where young people, regardless of their financial and social situation, can work hard and reach their full potential—whatever that might be. Sadly, in many parts of our country, the most significant limitation on an individual's success is their ability to aspire and to believe that they can create their own future, and I am determined to change this.
I am the son of two very hardworking Australians, Trevor and Linda Morton. They applied their efforts to own and operate their businesses, and the businesses of others, to accept risk and to employ people. My family's history is in farming, in building, in transport and in care. My dad's family were primary producers in the Dooralong Valley, just outside Wyong, on the New South Wales Central Coast. They moved through the industries of the time: pulpwood, citrus and dairy. I pay tribute and thanks to my grandmother, Daphne, a strong woman who instilled in her children values of self-reliance and determination, but who, after many years with dementia, sadly passed away, just over a fortnight ago, aged 94.
My mum immigrated from England as a ten-pound Pom with her then husband and my two brothers. The billboards posted in England at the time said, 'The call of the stars to British men and women,' 'the southern cross,' 'the stars which shine over Australia,' and 'the land of opportunity'. Full of enthusiasm for her new life in Australia, Mum worked hard, raised her family and embraced our Australian values while still remaining true to her northern English heritage.
I grew up around Wyong, attending Wyong Public School and Wyong High School. I certainly was not the most academic kid, but, on my first day of high school, something was said to me that really stuck with me: 'It doesn't matter where you're from or how smart you are, at high school all that matters is how hard you try.' What an amazing revelation—that your success can be determined by yourself, by your energy and by your commitment.
I was actually one of those strange kids at high school. I always wanted to revolutionise things. I looked for problems and I campaigned for solutions. In my first weeks of high school I set my sights on reforming the student council as it had no representation in the year 7 classes. After a mini campaign, democracy was restored and I was one of those elected. But in 1997 I learnt about the responsibility that comes with being a representative. I was in year 11 and instead of a long bell ringing for lunchtime three short bells, instead, told us that there was an emergency assembly in the quadrangle.
As I walked down the stairs, a year 8 kid said to his mate: 'I wonder who's killed themselves now. I wonder how they did it.' As shocking as those words were, I understood because in the past weeks assemblies had been called for that very reason. On this occasion there was no reporting of another suicide. Instead it was an assembly to discuss rumours of a suicide pact by young people in our community. That afternoon the Wyong Youth Advisory Council met and, if there was ever a time that something should be said and something should be done, this was it.
From that meeting, and by speaking on behalf of the people I represented, we held a youth forum on suicide. The posters and flyers for the forum were blunt: 'We're killing ourselves. Why? Let's talk about it.' Over 200 young people attended that night—a remarkable number for a town like Wyong. They came out to have their say and to acknowledge that they were not alone. The forum broke the wall of silence on this issue and the report from that forum was used to argue the case for those regional young people.
Earlier this year I gave a copy of that report to my very good friend the member for Canning. His regional WA community is very similar to the Central Coast, in New South Wales, and is dealing with the same issues today. I was really pleased to help but sad there was still a need to do so these decades later. Suicide breaks all of our hearts and it should drive us as representatives in this place to do everything we can to help people who feel they are beyond help and to empower them.
Through the application of my effort, and with the support of my family and teachers, I was one of only a handful of students from my school, and the first ever in my family, to go to university. I studied here in Canberra at the Australian National University. One teacher in particular, Bruce Willott, would have been most surprised but was also most responsible. Rather than the usual uni job of pulling pints, I decided to get a job in the transport industry. I trained as a bus driver, not far from this place, in Queanbeyan and I passed my test with flying colours. I got my licence to drive a bus and I was ready to start my first run, but there was one more step, and that was to apply for my authority to carry passengers. To my shock and horror, but to the amusement of my family and particularly my dad, my application for my authority to carry passengers was knocked back—not because I did not pass the required course but because I was too young. I had applied my effort, I had invested in and increased my skills and I was licensed to drive a bus, but there was not much demand for bus drivers who could not carry passengers. So if there is ever any question of where my anger at needless complication and red tape comes from, please keep this example in mind.
I hate waste and mismanagement and I hate needless complexity and regulation because the more complex something is the more expensive it is to administer. Few policy areas are more complex than social welfare. There are currently some 20 different types of welfare payments and more than 50 supplements to those payments. The legislation dealing with our welfare system covers five different acts filling over 5,000 pages. I am a compassionate conservative and I am proud that Australia has a safety net to support those in need but, sadly, our welfare system fails many. In too many cases taxpayer funded programs trap people who are otherwise able and willing to work. In too many cases the safety net becomes a hammock. Dame Dorothy Tangney said in her maiden speech, 'Social security is the right of every Australian,' and I could not disagree more. Taxpayer funded social security is not a right; it is a privilege. It is a privilege that is afforded to those in genuine need by others who work hard and pay their taxes. It is a privilege we offer as a nation that we can very be proud of. But with the receipt of that privilege comes responsibility and obligation.
The concept of mutual obligation must underpin any taxpayer funded welfare system. It is a concept in which I firmly believe. Working-age welfare should not be compensation for the situation someone finds themselves in. Rather, it must be an investment in where they can go. The success of our welfare system should not be assessed on how much money we spend. Success should be measured by the reduction of welfare dependency in our community. I commend the work of the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Human Services. By using data, we will determine the real effectiveness of our welfare system and assess whether it is actually making lives better or making lives worse.
I as a new MP have come to learn that so many of our problems can be solved by getting outside of our policy silos and that one problem plus another problem could well equal a solution. One example is the issue of young carers. I pay tribute to the care that these young people give to their family members and loved ones. However, recent data released by the ministers shows that young carers are expected to be on income support for 43 years over their future lifetimes, yet health care and social assistance will make the largest contribution to employment growth, with some 250,000 new jobs needing to be filled, by 2020. Sixteen per cent of young carers will be on welfare for life. While not all carers will want a career in caring, I hope that people who would otherwise be destined for lifelong welfare would find inspiration, meaning and fulfilment from a career in the caring jobs we need, born out of compassion for their loved ones.
I am not someone who believes that governments and parliaments have all the answers. The government's new Try, Test and Learn Fund accepts the answers are best sourced from the community. This fund will help identify solutions to move people from the dependency of welfare to meaningful and rewarding employment, tax paying and productive engagement in our community. I know the coalition is committed to achieving this, not to save money but to make lives better and communities stronger.
There is a war being waged in our communities right across Australia. Illegal drug use is stretching the fabric of our society, and I fear that, with newer, more harmful and immediately addictive drugs, that fabric is close to tearing. Ice is like no other drug we have known before. Proportionately, Australians use more methamphetamines than any other nation. There are over 200,000 dependent users in Australia, and each user's family, friends and colleagues are affected by this scourge. Just last week I met with a mother whose daughter is extremely lucky to be on the road to recovery. But her stories of immediate addiction, crime, dealing, vulnerability, rape and attempted suicide would shock anyone.
The final report from the National Ice Taskforce sets out 38 recommendations. While I am pleased that the government has responded immediately, with an investment of almost $300 million to improve treatment, after care, education and prevention, more still needs to be done. But this problem is complex and covers multiple departments and ministers.
Recommendation 32 concerning direct ministerial responsibility across portfolios is, for me, a most critical foundation stone and one on which the coalition has a proud track record. We should replicate the successful models used for border protection and implement a single ministerial authority, responsibility and accountability for tackling drugs in our community so that together we can start winning some battles in this war.
I have seen firsthand how drugs burn even the closest bonds, and I have seen the intersection of welfare and drugs in our community. During my high school years, my parents took full-time care of my nieces, who were then aged around five and six. My nieces were living in a drug fuelled, abusive environment with their mother. My parents, like so many other parents and grandparents, did absolutely the right thing. My nieces' mother and her friends would laugh at my parents as if they were mugs. Their attitude was, 'Why would you work for money when the government gives it out for free?' I cannot emphasise enough the impact these events have had on the development of who I am.
I want to be clear at this point: my nieces' mother and her friends are not representative of the vast majority of people on welfare. I am disgusted and dismayed by those who do not respond to our investment in them by investing in themselves and becoming part of our nation's success. My parents were no mugs. They were decent, hardworking Australians. They expected their taxes to be invested in making Australia even better, not simply redistributed to those who will not apply their own effort to improve their lives.
I am pleased that the federal government passed legislation last year to trial a cashless healthy welfare card. The card cannot be used to purchase drugs and alcohol. Trials in the East Kimberley and in Ceduna are proving successful. These communities realise that the lazy application of cash can reduce quality of life, not improve it. I see no reason why the card cannot be rolled out more extensively in our community to, again, make lives better. By listening to experts and to those who have firsthand experience and by using data, we can have pragmatic programs which help people wanting to improve their lot in life.
In his inaugural Sir Robert Menzies Lecture in Western Australia in 1970, Menzies talked about pragmatism, making the point that the term is often misunderstood or seen in a negative context, particularly by those who rely on the 'doctrinaire' approach of socialism. Pragmatism is not a weakness but a strength to adapt to what is needed and to use the resources available to us to make things better. This does not mean we abandon our ideals; rather, we plant the seeds for future success and achieve what can be attained now. Ultimately every political problem is also a human one with a pragmatic solution.
I learnt this early when at 20 I was preselected as the state Liberal candidate for Wyong. While I was not elected, I was still able to make a difference. I worked with a small organisation called the Wyong Child Abuse Prevention Service. Funding had dried up and the service was set to close. We ran a countdown-to-closure campaign that gave a voice to those people who were not being heard by government. The pressure applied by that campaign resulted in the then Premier visiting that organisation and committing funding to it. It was such a proud moment for me as a young candidate—applying advocacy skills and enthusiasm, and making a positive difference for my community.
My journey to this place has taken its path through the professional wing of the Liberal Party—a journey that may not have happened if it were not for the convincing nature of the then state director of the New South Wales Liberal Party, now my parliamentary colleague, the Treasurer of Australia. Like so many others, I moved across the Nullarbor for work. I became state director of the WA Liberal Party. I am proud of what the WA Liberals achieved during my seven-plus years in that role. Of particular pride is that I was able to draw on the teachings of my parents and apply them to the management of the Liberal Party, one of WA's largest membership organisations, as a business.
To the possible disappointment of the then federal director, Brian Loughnane, who on more than one occasion declared very loudly that I had 'gone native', my wife Asta and I decided some years ago to call WA home—permanently. Asta and I are in awe of WA's entrepreneurial spirit, courage, self-reliance and determination to succeed. My family and I have made our home in the area I now have the privilege to represent. Located just south of the Perth CBD, Tangney is vibrant and cosmopolitan. Tangney is graced by the beauty of the Swan and Canning rivers as its northern boundary and is also shaped by a thriving local community with a great number of organisations and service clubs dedicated to helping others. Tangney boasts a wide range of the industries and businesses that define Australia's entrepreneurial spirit—light industrial and trade supplies in Myaree, specialist medical and retail in Booragoon, an educational and medical heart with Murdoch University and Fiona Stanley Hospital, and some of WA's premier schools right across the electorate.
I have the privilege to stand before you because of the support of so many. There are some people from the very start of my journey from the Central Coast that I would like to recognise: Ron and Lorraine Stevens, Bev Hemers, Peter Richardson, Mike and Judy Gallacher, and George and Julie Caruana. Professionally, I have worked with some great Liberals from whom I have learnt a lot, and there are others who have worked with me in the battle for good government. Many of those people are here today, in the gallery, or watching online. Thank you. I thank the WA Liberal Party for the faith they placed in me as a young man in his 20s—particularly the organisational leaders I worked closely with, including Barry Court, Geoff Prosser, Norman Moore, Kim Keogh, Danielle Blain and Andrew Cox. It has been a great honour to work closely with Premier Colin Barnett, and I thank him especially for that endearing paternal approach he takes to our friendship.
Australia's success is built on individuals and enterprise, and prior to entering this place I worked as a senior manager for one of Western Australia's greatest companies, BGC. I know of the need to reinstate the ABCC and to pass the registered organisations legislation, not because I have read a report or because of blind ideology but because I have been there on building sites talking directly to the workers who just want to get on, do their job and be productive. I have met with subbies who have told me explicitly that they quote much higher prices on union jobs due to poor productivity. Productivity is not another name for profit; productivity is about getting more done. While there is a place for unions in our society, sadly their actions in many ways stifle productivity. They prevent more people being employed. They hinder infrastructure being built for our community. I value greatly the mentorship and friendship at BGC from Julian Ambrose and Kelvin Ryan.
I am honoured to be the candidate chosen by the people of Tangney to represent them. I want to thank the 500 or so volunteers that worked on my campaign. I want to recognise key members of my campaign executive: Richard Newton, Phil Turtle, Robert Reid, Anthony Spagnolo, Godfrey Lowe, Ben Kunze, Monika Dunnet, Allan Brown and Ross Hughes. I recognise in the gallery the former member for Tangney Peter Shack.
The WA federal parliamentary contingent is a formidable force, led by the foreign minister, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Employment. I have worked closely with each and every one of the WA Liberal members and senators. They are all passionate advocates for their communities and they have inspired me; their dedication is immeasurable and their friendship is heartfelt. Senator Cormann, Hayley Cormann, Isabelle and Charlotte: thank you for your friendship and your support for my family and me—particularly as we adjust to this new FIFO job! Thank you to my office team of Richard, Helen, Anna-me, Jordan and Tom. Good luck; you are going to need it.
I want to thank some personal friends: Leah Sales and my very special cousin Carissa Daniel; Jane and Kristian Galanti; Peter Murdoch and Carmel Tobin; Andrew and Jane Partington; and Tony George. To my brothers, Shaun and Lea; my sister, Shelley; and all of my nieces and nephews: I love you. As a 17-year-old moving away from home to study, my mates from Burgmann College, ANU are truly lifelong friends, and I acknowledge their contribution to who I am. To Michael, Anna, Lara, SLW, Swifty, Sally, Rowena, Stu and Randy G: thank you.
Since my mum passed away from cancer in December last year, I have thought so much about Mum and Dad and I have reflected on the greatest impact they have had on who I am. I know Dad wishes Mum could be here, sitting with him, looking down on me delivering this speech. But Mum is watching from a place much higher up than the public gallery, and every day she is keeping a watchful eye on us, encouraging us to work hard, stay strong and do what is right. I have one regret with my relationship with my mum, and I will work very hard not to make that same mistake again. Love of family and friends is a gift to all of us but so easily taken for granted. I know Mum was very proud of the responsibilities I took on at a young age, but I regret that more often than not I thought I was too busy to take that call or just listen. I think that can be a lesson for all of us.
By 6 pm on election night, my sore throat had developed into laryngitis, and I was unable to speak.
Putting aside the irony of being elected an MP and instantly at that point losing my ability to give my own victory speech, there was no-one I would have wanted more than you, Asta, to step in and speak on my behalf. Asta, I do not know how you do it. Even I would not put up with myself sometimes, but you do. Thank you so much. Thank you for keeping it real; thank you for mocking me—constantly; thank you for sharing the responsibility of our commitment to represent Tangney in our federal parliament.
To Harrison and Madeline, my two beautiful children, this is where I work. All of my workmates come here to try and make our country even better for you. We are going to disagree a bit across the chamber, but your future is worth fighting for.
I want not only to be a great representative for the families and businesses in Tangney and in Australia but also to make a significant contribution to our nation. So, if you are a hardworking, aspirational Australian, I am here for you. If you want to apply your maximum effort to make your life better, I am here for you. If you want to volunteer to make your community better, I am here for you. If you loathe waste and mismanagement and you want your taxes spent responsibly, I am here for you. If you share our common Australian values, whether your heritage is from over the seas or you are an Indigenous Australian, if you look forward not backwards and if you make a contribution to our nation's future, I am here for you. And, if you want the very best for Australia, I am here for you.
With all Australians striving to be the very best they can be, with all Australians applying their effort to improve their lot in life, with all Australians sharing our common values and working together, the future of our country should be very bright.
Before I call the honourable member for Oxley, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend the usual courtesies.
I commence today by acknowledging the first peoples of our nation, in particular the Ngunawal people, the custodians of the land on which we meet today, and the Jagera and Turrbal peoples, the traditional owners of the land in my electorate of Oxley. Today I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging, but I do so recognising that, as a nation, we can only truly measure real and respectful action that we collectively take to close the gap when it comes to Indigenous disadvantage—a special responsibility for those of us elected to this place.
Constitutional recognition of our first peoples—to quote my new friend the member for Barton, the first member of this place to be elected as an Indigenous woman—is 'a no-brainer'. Every First World nation with a colonial history has done it, bar Australia. This matter of national importance must be dealt with urgently and will be a priority for me.
It is a cold winter's night in 1944 on board HMAS Ararat, an Australian warship positioned in the newly captured Allied territory of Cape Gloucester, New Britain. Life on board Ararat is not easy. Sailors carry out their minesweeping and antisubmarine duties in cramped conditions and are exposed to high rates of pneumonia and tuberculosis. One young sailor on board Ararat works tirelessly performing his duties as a signalman on the upper deck. He knows that, if the ship is to come under fire, it will be he who is responsible for a signal to call for a rescue and will likely go down with the ship if the vessel is ultimately bombed. That young man was my father, Allan Baxter Dick, who served his country through the Second World War, enlisting at the age of only 20, serving in the Second Australian Imperial Force until Allied victory in the Pacific.
Fast forward 70 years to this time last week and, as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, I was privileged to be on a similar sized vessel, the HMAS Maryborough, in the Timor Sea. This not only reminded me of my father's brave and dedicated service to this nation but reminded me of the service of those women and men who protect our borders, freedom and democracy. Whilst my father served in the Navy, my mother, Joan, who is with us in the gallery today, trained as a nurse at the St Martin's repatriation hospital. Like my father, Mum has also dedicated her life to one of service, working as a midwife throughout her career, providing the same compassion and care for others as she did her family.
Once home from the war, Dad teamed up with his brother, Milton Dick Sr, to establish a number of successful butchers on Brisbane's southside, Dick Bros Meats. He was not afraid of hard work and did not mind drilling this work ethic into his children. He was always a fair man, which I was recently reminded of when I was stopped on polling day by an older gentleman. He told me that he could not really remember the last time he voted but that he would be voting for me this time around. He told me my father had given him his first job in his butcher shop when no-one else would, and he knew the character of the man, my father, Allan Dick.
My journey here today was ultimately borne out of the lived values instilled in me by my parents: public service, compassion, fairness, hard work. As an 18-year-old university student I joined a political party which also shared those values, and to this day I have been a proud member of the great Australian Labor Party.
For the last eight years I have had the privilege of serving on the Brisbane City Council, representing a large part of the Oxley electorate. I will always remain an enthusiastic hands-on local representative. There is no issue too big or small I will not do my best to help fix. That is the only way I know.
Named after the explorer, John Oxley, the electorate of Oxley takes in the south-west suburbs of Brisbane. It is home to young families, local businesses and industry but also dense bushland, stretching from the transport and logistics hub of Larapinta in the east to the history-rich Redbank in the west, from the leafy Centenary suburbs in the north and to the modern and exciting city of Greater Springfield in the south.
Oxley is located in one of the fastest-growing corridors in the country, and I could not think of a better piece of Australia to live and represent. One of the major issues regularly raised with me is the adequate provision of infrastructure for our growing area. The less time people spend in traffic jams means the more time they have with their families. That means more efficient business, stronger communities and a better quality of life.
I want to take this opportunity today to put the Turnbull government on notice on the issue of the notorious Ipswich Motorway bottleneck. It is an issue I campaigned vigorously on during the election period. This road must be fixed, and I will not stop until this bottleneck is fixed.
Oxley is a glorious melting pot of cultures, including a vibrant Vietnamese community among other families from across the seas who now call Australia home. Today I wear a tie in support of the colours of the flag of South Vietnam, and I publicly acknowledge those brave men and women fighting for a free and democratic Vietnam.
I pay tribute to the sacrifices made by the thousands of Vietnamese Australians who call Oxley home. They represent a true success story in overcoming adversity and completed a dangerous journey across the seas to give themselves and their families a chance for a better life in Australia. There are many that I am proud to call friends, including my Vietnamese sister Phuong Nguyen and the president of the Queensland chapter of the Vietnamese Community in Australia, Dr Cuong Bui.
I would like to acknowledge two long serving former members for Oxley. The first is the Hon. William George Hayden—a former leader of the Australian Labor Party, Treasurer, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Australia's Governor-General. Bill Hayden also served this nation as the Minister for Social Security and was the architect and father of what we now call Medicare.
Bill, I appreciate your words of wisdom and support. Today I pledge to honour the Hayden legacy by continuing to support universal and affordable health care. I will not let any government dismantle this great Australian institution. Bill and Dallas Hayden are deeply revered not only in my electorate but right throughout Australia.
The second is the Hon. Bernie Ripoll, who is present in the gallery today. Bernie is the definition of an exemplary parliamentarian and community champion, serving in this House from 1998 until his retirement this year. Bernie's legacy of devotion to his constituents is legendary, and he has left his footprint by delivering practical and tangible outcomes for the people of Oxley and changing their lives for the better. He practised what he preached and delivered. I salute Bernie's outstanding contribution to the Oxley community and the labour movement, and I wish him and his family all the best for the future.
It is also not lost on me that I am delivering my first speech as a former member for Oxley takes her seat in the other place. While I may not be able to take back the hate-filled words uttered in her first speech of 1996, I can instead loudly and proudly extol here today the multicultural diversity enjoyed by this nation and my electorate of Oxley in particular.
Multiculturalism is not just a great social strength of our nation but increasingly a great economic strength. When I walk out of my home in Durack, my office in Forest Lake or do my groceries in the bustling Inala civic centre I meet people from all backgrounds. They proudly call Australia home and are entitled to feel welcome—not targeted or demonised.
The multiculturalism enjoyed by Australia remains, sadly, under immense threat—not by those on the far-right fringe of our political process but by the so-called mainstream Abbott-Turnbull government through their continued attempts to water down section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, effectively legalising bigoted hate speech.
Just as Labor helped lead the charge against these bigots in the previous parliament, fighting off attempts to amend 18C, we will continue to do so in this parliament—and the next and the next. We will do so because Labor is proudly the party of multiculturalism.
It was only yesterday that I was proud to stand side by side with my Labor colleagues to sign the revised Australian federal code of race and ethics. I will always call out racism and bigotry when I see it, and this member of Oxley will never judge anyone by their race or religion.
As our global and domestic economies continue to rapidly advance, we must make absolutely sure that the human consequences of this advancement are properly responded to. Yes, progress does bring with it new opportunities and the prospect of high living standards across the globe. But it also brings with it challenges—challenges which must not be responded to with fear and division but rather with hope and optimism for the future.
Here in Australia, and particularly in my home state of Queensland, the economic transition that is underway has naturally led many people to feel anxious about the future. They rightly question what will sustain their local economies into the future, their jobs, their household budgets. They look to the future and try to picture what may lie ahead for their children and grandchildren.
I believe the future for our nation and our economy is as bright as it has ever been. There is no excuse for our political process to prey on the instinctive anxieties held by many about the future. I say to those on the far-right wing and fringe of Australian politics: simply stating that a problem exists does not solve anything for our constituents. We must listen to the stories of everyday Australians, hear their hopes and struggles and be solution focused. Today I pledge to the people of Oxley to be part of that solution.
I believe this parliament has an obligation to help raise the tone of our debate and talk with the hope and optimism deserving of our great nation—not just in this place but in the public conversations we help to lead. The truth is: Australia has and always will be at its best when everyone is pulling in the same direction. It is up to us to make that happen.
I believe in an economy that works in the interests of everyday working people, not just the fortunate few. Right now, across the world, there is an undeniable appetite to chart a new economic course—a more inclusive, fairer and equal economy. We all know that those opposite who cling onto small government and trickle-down economics will soon find themselves on the wrong side of history, because the reality is, when wealth is in the hands of a greater number of people, the greater capacity there is to generate jobs and drive economic growth. It is a pretty simple equation. Today I commit myself to be a fierce and relentless advocate for policies that provide for the fair and just distribution of our nation's prosperity.
There is no better example of a people-powered economy than Labor's response to the global financial crisis. I pay tribute to the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan—a friend, a great economic thinker and a lion of the Labor Party—for successfully navigating Australia through that period and for taking decisive action when it was needed, a response which made sure Australia held onto our 25 years of uninterrupted economic growth. As the member for Lilley would agree, these 25 years of continued economic growth would not have been possible without the visionary economic reforms of the Labor Hawke and Keating governments, reforms which ultimately allowed my home state of Queensland to cement itself as a major engine room of our national economy.
One of these engine rooms of growth has been the mining and resources sector in my home state of Queensland. Resources alone account for over half of Australia's total exports of goods and services, making it the primary source of Australia's export revenue. Our two largest exports in 2015-16 were iron ore and coal, together accounting for 27 per cent of our total exports. Mining is our second-largest industry in terms of output, employing over 220,000 people across the nation, and, importantly, it is the largest private-sector employer of Indigenous Australians. For every worker employed, the mining sector generates approximately $682,000 for our economy. Our resources exports are forecast to increase to $232 billion by 2020-21. Australia holds the largest reserves of uranium in the world and significant quantities of other energy-producing resources. No other nation is better positioned than Australia to supply the world with its growing demand for resources. Whilst there are no doubt challenges facing the resources sector, we must continue to be steadfast in our support of the sector, as our neighbours China and India, in particular, grow to be 21st century superpowers and pull millions out of poverty. Australia has played a crucial role in this achievement by providing these countries with some of the highest-quality resources and minerals in the world as construction booms in our region. Queensland and Australia's mining and resources sector has a bright future, and I am determined and looking forward to supporting these industries as a federal member of parliament.
I look around the House this afternoon and I see many new members on this side of the House who share the same vision, and all have given exceptional first speeches. All of this would not have been possible if it were not for the leadership, commitment and policy initiatives shown by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party and Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten. A little over a month before the election, we were fortunate enough to have Bill and his gracious wife, Chloe, visit Oxley for the opening of a solar energy wholesale distribution business, to build on Labor's renewable energy policies. It was there, once again, where I saw firsthand how much Bill understands the businesses and workers of Australia, as he spoke with forklift drivers and senior management on a sunny Queensland winter's morning. In the days following that visit, my campaign had an influx of volunteers showing their enthusiasm to get involved after hearing Bill speak in their local community. Whilst we fell short in this year's campaign, I have no doubt that in three years time, or potentially less, we will form a Shorten Labor government. Bill, you will make an outstanding Prime Minister. I thank Bill for his support and friendship over many years.
The one thing that binds us all in this House, on both sides of the parliament and the Independents, is the fact that none of us comes here without the support of others. I am no different. In my case I have had, for most parts, an amazing political journey, and my work will be to simply repay that support. Today I pay tribute to the leaders of our movement. It is because of their leadership and work I stand here today. In particular, I acknowledge the deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek. I first met Tanya 21 years ago. I was struck straightaway by her compassion, her kindness and her steely determination to get things done. I was in awe of her then, and it is now an enormous honour to work with her.
During and before the campaign I was very fortunate to have the support of Labor giants and people I am now proud to call friends: a great Labor talent Chris Bowen, Andrew Leigh, Jason Clare, Sharon Bird, Joel Fitzgibbon and my nearest Labor New South Wales colleague, the wonderful Justine Elliot. I thank Tony Burke for his strong support for almost two decades, and I especially acknowledge Jenny Macklin for her wise advice and her lifetime of service to our movement and always being the voice for those who need it most. I also thank my neighbouring MP Shayne Neumann, the member for Blair, for his generosity. Shayne is known in this place as one of the most honourable members, and I thank Shayne for the time he spent and the kindness he showed in helping to get me elected as the member for Oxley. I could not ask for a better neighbour. And it is such a great privilege to work along my great friend Jim Chalmers, Terri Butler and new Senators Chisholm and Watt. All are not just great colleagues—alongside Graham Perrett—but they are good friends and they are amazing talents who I know will continue to serve our party and, importantly, our great state of Queensland for many years to come.
But two members of this place are not just colleagues; they are two lifelong friends: the member for Kingston, Amanda Rishworth, and the member for Greenway, Michelle Rowland—always standing by my side, respected and loved by their communities and respected and loved by me. Michelle, thanks for being the best touchstone a friend could ever have. To my new touchstones—the amazing Madeleine, Tim, Matt, Josh and Anne from WA; the two Ems, Susan, Anne and my new best friend, the mighty Meryl from Paterson—I am lucky to serve alongside all of you in sector 12.
No member of this House can claim to do this job alone, and I am fortunate to have many friends and family who have travelled a great distance to be with us here today in the gallery. I thank my amazing sister, Susan, and her children, Conor and Clare. My sister is a gifted educator, someone who has taught in the public system for 30 years and hopefully will put me in the good books with the member for Lalor. She is a constant support to her younger brothers, as are my other—honorary—sisters, Louise and Tizzy.
To the other member of my family, who is not here, I will let him off the hook as he is currently sitting in another parliament, in my home state of Queensland. I am so proud of my brother, Cameron. My success is because of his love and support. He serves in the Queensland cabinet as Minister for Health and Minister for Ambulance Services . He has also held the portfolios of Education and Industrial Relations and served as our state's Attorney-General. He serves with another friend, the Queensland Premier, the Hon. Annastacia Palaszczuk . No-one has done more to support me. She is an outstanding Premier, a caring friend and someone who always has my back. Stacia, I know you will later listen to this with my mates, ministers Jackie Trad, Kate Jones, Grace Grace, Shannon Fentiman and Leeanne Enoch; Di Farmer; and one of my best mate s, Linus Power.
In the gallery sit a range of people who stood by me through the good, bad and ugly: Julian Noud , Jacki Power, Charis Mullen and, from overseas, Justine Bond. These are the people who have been there from the beginning. I value everything you have done for me. Chris and Julie Tyquin are those friends I count on, and of course they are here today. I thank my mates Paulo, Nino, Tony, Rols, Tom and Keeks for always keeping me on the straight and narrow—maybe more on the narrow.
I have been blessed to have had the guidance of many friends and mentors on my journey here, including the Hon. David Beddall. I am honored to now represent the same constituency that David served so well with distinction during his time as an MP from 1984 to 1998, and I hope I do his legacy proud. I was also fortunate enough to work for John Hogg, another great mentor and former President of the Senate. He taught me the importance of standing up for others and fighting for those who need it most.
Thanks for the guidance from Labor greats like John and Catherine Mickel, Henry and Lorell e Palaszczuk, Sharon Humphreys and the wonderful Hazel Hubbard . To my good friends and former Brisbane City Council colleagues, Shayne Sutton and Kim Flesser : I know you are here in spirit.
Bearing in mind the length of the 2016 election campaign, I say from the bottom of my heart a sincere thank you, especially to the army of volunteers who campaigned for me and Labor, week in and week out across the Oxley electorate, and the hardworking branch members. But many of the supporters simply were not ALP members; they were people from the community. My campaign was also powered by grassroots activists from the union movement. I recognize the TWU and the SDA and acknowledge Chris Gazenbeek and his wife, Lucy, who are with us today; the strong Plumbers Union with Gary O'Halloran at its leadership; and, heading all the way down, the mighty Australian Worke rs' Union, led by my friend Ben Swan, a strong leader who fights for working people and the progressive cause every single day.
Whilst time does not permit me to thank every individual volunteer or every member of the ALP in Queensland , I must pay particular thanks to my campaign director , Margie Nightingale ; my organisers , Adam and Josh ; and my best mate and one of Labor's best political minds , Jon Persley , for everyth ing he has done to get me here. I thank my campaign chairman, Les Bryant ; Toni and Brenda Gibbs ; C ouncillor Charles Strunk ; C ouncillor Paul Tully; the M ayor of Ipswich , Mayor Paul Pisasale ; and the amazing women who ha ve worked with me for the past eight years —M ichelle, Sandy, Cathy and Karen and my great new team of Brent, Michael and Dylan.
As I come to the concl usion of my first speech, I canno t help but think back to my father working as a signalman on board the Ararat . He approached his role with steadfast dedication and resolve to see the job through to the very end, and I pledge to do the same for the people of Oxley. I do not and will not take for granted the great privilege that has been bestowed on me by the people of Oxley , and they can be assured that I will be fighting for Oxley, day and night, to make our community and our nation a better place for all Australians. I thank the H ouse.
Before I call the honorable member for Werriwa, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I join with other members of this place to offer my sincere congratulations for your election to this important role.
I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which this parliament sits, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples. I pay my respects to their elders, past, present and future. I also acknowledge the traditional owners in my electorate of Werriwa, the Dharug, Gandangara and Tharawal peoples. Let me also acknowledge any other Indigenous people present in the house today. Labor, under the leadership of Whitlam, Keating and Rudd, has been a champion of reconciliation and recognition of our first people. I hope that in this 45th Parliament we can continue this work by finally recognizing our first people in the Constitution.
The seat of Werriwa is a Federation seat steeped in history. It takes its name from the local Aboriginal name for Lake George, which in the early 1900s was in the boundaries of the electorate. Werriwa was then a rural electorate, but with the growth of population it is now part of greater Sydney. It is an area that extends from Macquarie Fields in the south to Bonnyrigg in the north, Casula to the east and Badgerys Creek in the west.
It is soon to be the home of Sydney's second airport, a project often promised but previously not delivered. And this is why it is so crucial that its construction is done correctly, with the long-term interests of the people of Western Sydney at heart. The addition of the airport to my electorate has been made with the promise of employment and opportunity—something the people of Werriwa would welcome given that, according to the 2011 census, 68 per cent of the workforce travel outside the electorate every day for work. The average commute is approximately 1½ hours per day—valuable time which takes my constituents away from their families and communities. It has a crippling impact on their quality of life. It is hard to exercise, help the children with homework or coach a local rugby league team, as I did, when you are stuck on the M4 or the M5.
For the good of all Australians, particularly the residents of Werriwa and the adjoining electorates of Macarthur, Lindsay, McMahon, Chifley and Fowler, the airport must be properly planned and the EIS strictly followed, and my constituents should not be subjected to 24-hour aircraft noise. We must enhance the economic prospects of Western Sydney but also balance the environmental impacts. We need to protect the pristine areas of World Heritage in the Blue Mountains, in the electorate of my colleague the member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman. Labor is clear that the people of Western Sydney deserve an airport that is well planned, with the accompanying infrastructure ready before the first flight arrives. A properly planned airport, with a heavy-rail link and land dedicated to the industries of the 22nd century, will be an essential hub of employment and economic opportunity for the people of the south-west.
I have been reminded on more than one occasion that I have big shoes to fill. My predecessors have had a significant influence in Australian public life. For nearly a century, my seat has been held by Labor. The Prime Minister indicated late in the recent election campaign that he believed Werriwa would be won by the coalition. But the strength of the Labor campaign and our positive message meant that the seat was held by Labor with an increased majority. That is something which I am very proud of and humbled by.
The Hon. Laurie Ferguson, who retired from this place at the last election and is in the audience today, held the seat for six years after a career that encompassed two parliaments, three constituencies and 26 years of public service. Laurie was a tireless advocate for the people of Werriwa. He is an amazing person, a formidable intellect, and I am honoured by his support and mentorship over the past few years. Thank you, Laurie.
His predecessor, now the member for Fowler, Chris Hayes, is also an inspiring example of how to represent an electorate. I am grateful to consider Chris and his wife, Bernadette, friends. His advice and assistance, especially in the recent campaign, were amazing.
Werriwa has also been held by some very significant leaders in our party: Mark Latham, a Labor leader; John Kerin, a senior minister in the Hawke and Keating governments; and, of course, the Hon. Edward Gough Whitlam. Whitlam held the seat for 26 years and served the people of Werriwa and this nation for decades more. I moved to Werriwa in 1962, aged one. Gough Whitlam loomed large on the Australian political scene for all of my childhood with his distinguished contributions to Australian political life. One of my childhood memories is of my father wearing a party hat and cheering on the night of 2 December 1972, saying, 'We won, we finally won!' Finally, it truly was time.
The achievements of the Whitlam government are too substantial to list again here. However, it is right to acknowledge today that the achievements of the Whitlam government in relation to education, health and women's rights enhanced the opportunities of residents of Werriwa and all Australians. Whitlam championed women in the ALP. He thought women should be making ALP policy, not just making the tea. The Labor Party has ensured Whitlam's legacy through actively supporting women to be candidates in winnable seats. As a result, there are now more women members of our caucus than ever before. I could not imagine standing in this place as the first female member for Werriwa without the achievements of the Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments.
I was inspired to join the ALP in 1996 as a response to the reactionary policies of the Howard government—in particular, the Howard government's attacks on workers' rights, his malicious war on multiculturalism and his appalling attacks on Indigenous peoples. As Keating famously said:
… in truth, we cannot confidently say that we have succeeded as we would like to have succeeded if we have not managed to extend opportunity and care, dignity and hope to the indigenous people of Australia—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people.
I wanted to be part of the Australian Labor Party—the progressive party in Australian politics; the party that works to advance the opportunities of all Australians. My family have always been Labor supporters and union members, and they see these as core institutions that support a progressive Australia. I joined the union on the first day I started work and have been a unionist ever since. My mother worked for the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia because, at a time when this was not required by legislation, the union paid men and women equal wages. The BWIU also allowed women to continue working once they married, meaning Mum continued to work for the union up to my birth some 10 years later.
My family have always taken an active interest in politics, but I wanted to move from the family tradition of yelling at politicians on the TV, pioneered by my feisty, Manchester born grandmother, who would engage in fierce mock debate whenever Malcolm Fraser came on the television. No doubt she had previously argued with prime ministers McMahon, Gorton and Menzies. I am too young to remember that, however!
While yelling at the TV can be satisfying, especially as you are always right in your own lounge room, I wanted to be part of the Labor tradition of making positive change through engagement in the political process. My family has always had a high regard for what a Labor government can do. While the achievements of the Whitlam government changed the nation, the Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments did much to improve opportunity for all Australians. When I was a child, my father would frequently remind our family of the achievements of Curtin and Chifley, when they created the social safety net in the shadow of World War II. The achievements of these previous Labor governments remind us of what is possible in politics, and I need to contribute to that proud tradition.
I began my political career by serving as a councillor on Liverpool City Council from 2008 to 2016. I firmly believe that all politics are local and what affects individuals will affect everyone. One of my favourite achievements from my time as a councilor was working with council staff to ensure that employees at Hoxton Industries, an organisation that provides jobs for people with a disability in my electorate, had easier access to their premises. Early one morning, on the way to drop my grandchild at day care, I drove past one of the employees in a wheelchair struggling in the rain to gain access to their workplace due to a missing section of footpath. I contacted the CEO and we worked to complete that footpath. The organisation spoke to me once the work was complete and indicated the huge difference it had made to the workers. This is a modest achievement. It is not the creation of Medicare, nor the extension of universal education, but it is, to my mind, consistent with the best Labor traditions of extending a helping hand to those who need it most.
Following in the tradition of the previous members for Werriwa, I plan to contribute by continuing to focus on the services—often simple services—that people need to improve their lives. My predecessor Gough Whitlam recognised the importance of education and health care. Unlike many of his critics, Gough lived in suburban Australia. He appreciated the impact basic infrastructure like sewage and sealed roads had on people's lives. Like Gough, I will fight to ensure the residents of Werriwa have good-quality public education to enhance their life opportunities and access to appropriate infrastructure, from footpaths to first-rate broadband.
The residents of Werriwa need good-quality health care, which means adequate funding of Medicare and the public hospital system. Much has been made by those opposite of the so-called 'Mediscare' campaign and the claims of untruths and misinformation from the ALP. The people of Werriwa knew, however, by deed and example, that our Medicare campaign was indeed correct. You cannot back universal health care with a plan to privatise Medicare. Labor, the architects of Medicare, will always support universal health care.
I believe that everyone in a modern society deserves access to health care without worrying about how they will pay for it. Under the Liberals, pathology will cost more on 1 January next year. And the three tries at the introduction of a co-payment by stealth had GPs in my electorate raising concerns with me and, no doubt, their patients. A caring society makes sure that all its citizens are able to access health care that improves their lives. Universal health care is a right for all—not goods to be sold to the highest bidder, like the cancer register.
Medicare means so much to families in Werriwa. Before Medicare, I can remember discussions between my parents about how they would choose who they could afford to take to the doctor. I remember their relief when first Medibank and then Medicare made such choices unnecessary. My father had a good, stable job. We were by no means the poorest family in our neighbourhood. Now, I can only imagine what choices had to be made in other households.
Without Medicare our family would have been bankrupted by the frequent hospitalisations and medical tests required before and after my mother's diagnosis with multiple sclerosis. My twin sons, who last month graduated from Western Sydney University, were born prematurely, at 29 weeks. Their early weeks were spent in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Westmead Hospital. Our family is forever indebted to the hardworking staff at that hospital—the orderlies, administrative staff, nurses and doctors who worked so hard caring for their patients and my sons. Without the expert care available in the public hospital system my sons would not have survived. And without Medicare our family would have had significant bills to pay at a time we could least afford them.
Westmead Hospital is a legacy of the Whitlam Labor government. Whitlam understood that hospitals should be built where people are, rather than where the doctors live. Gough's vision and Neville Wran's determination saw the hospital built. This is the sort of infrastructure that makes a society humane. It should not be outsourced or privatised but supported by all governments. With the burgeoning population growth in my region, hospitals are still under stress, and it is time for upgrades at Campbelltown and Nepean hospitals—a need Mike Baird has overlooked and those opposite continue to ignore.
Protecting Medicare and maintaining health funding is personal for me. I know from conversations with my constituents that many share such stories of how good-quality public health care enabled their families to provide support to love ones facing major health challenges. As the member for Werriwa, I will work with colleagues to ensure that Medicare survives and thrives and ensure that access to high-quality health care is dependent on a patient's need and not the size of their bank balance.
The quickest way to improve lives in our community and reduce reliance on welfare is needs-based funding of education. Like many of my constituents, including my children, I attended Lurnea high. State schools like Lurnea provide opportunity for all through the hard work of teachers and support staff and with the encouragement of local families.
Families in Werriwa have a higher incidence of developmental issues such as autism than the population as a whole. Funding depending on need to support such families through early childhood and school education is vital. The government must support our hardworking teachers and support staff. They make a huge difference to the lives of families in Werriwa. Their contributions will be enhanced through a properly funded needs-based education system.
But education does not stop when school ends. Adequate support for tertiary education is vital. The New South Wales government is currently undermining the TAFE system which has provided generations of Werriwa residents with the qualifications necessary to develop a rewarding and stable career. The federal Liberal government was prevented by colleagues in the Senate from similarly undermining the university sector, but nonetheless made substantial cuts to schemes designed to support disadvantaged people's access to higher education. My generation was the first in my family to attend university. Both my parents should have—they were brilliant, and would have offered so much—but the costs were prohibitive. As the member for Werriwa and as a member of the Labor team, I will work to ensure that access to education at all levels promotes opportunity for all Australians.
While sewers were essential in Gough's time, and footpaths are vital for many today, we must ensure that we equip our cities andsuburbs with the infrastructure of the next century. The lack of high-speed broadband remains a significant problem for the residents of Werriwa. During the election campaign, and as the member for Werriwa, I have been repeatedly approached with concerns about the availability, speed and reliability of internet services in my electorate. In some areas of my electorate, constituents are moving into new housing estates with no hope of any—or at least not fast and reliable—internet access for years. One constituent emailed me in September to tell me that Telstra had suggested that if she wanted an internet connection she should move! She lives just 10 kilometres from the Liverpool CBD—a regional city—and five kilometres from the nearest Telstra exchange.
The lack of reliable internet, let alone the NBN, reduces my constituents' life opportunities. They cannot work or run a business from home. They cannot work on or submit assignments for school, TAFE or university. They cannot maintain their ties with family members through services such as Skype and Facebook. The recent announcements by NBN Co that it will not use the HFC network means that a large part of my electorate is again wondering if they will ever have the benefit of the NBN. Constituents cannot sustain connecting to the internet using portable internet devices which are not fit for purpose and are extremely expensive. As high quality internet facilities are key to the contemporary drivers of economic development, such as education and innovation, the poor access to facilities in Werriwa systematically disadvantages my constituents' access to the growing digital economy. As the member for Werriwa, I will be guided by the principals of access, equity and social justice. I want to ensure that the people of my electorate are able to have somewhere to live that they can afford, properly funded Medicare and education and high speed broadband connections.
With the indulgence of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to take some time to thank just a few of the people who have helped me to stand in this place today. My election success was definitely a team effort. I would like to thank all the branch members of Werriwa who phoned, letterboxed, worked on pre-poll and polling booths and did the many other tasks that make an election campaign possible—people like Sam Kayal, Slobodan Lazovic, Nathan Hagarty, Dom Mosca, Frank and Rhonda Sulman, Keith Kerrigan, Pat Glossop, Chris Noble, Tim Kaliyanda, Grace Fava, and the list goes on and on. For the Werriwa campaign team of Charishma Kaliyanda, Raf Catanzariti and Emily Baldwin, 'thank you' seems so little when you gave up so much of your time to encourage, doorknock, phone and organise for me. You did so much to help me; thank you all from the bottom of my heart.
To Laurie Ferguson and the member for Macquarie Fields, Anoulack Chanthivong, thank you for your support and early morning train station camaraderie. I also thank the member for Macarthur, Dr Mike Freelander, for his friendship and support. I also thank the staff of Anoulack's office—Natasha, Rowena and especially Aaron Rule for his encouragement over my time in the Labor Party. I thank my staff Linda, Vicki, Steve, Alex and Katerina and the recently retired Maurice Campbell for all they have done for the electorate of Werriwa.
I also acknowledge my fellow Liverpool City Council colleagues Wendy Waller, Ali Karnib and Geoff Shelton and congratulate them on their success in the recent elections. I know that, now the numbers have changed, Liverpool will now include the community's and not just developers' interests into the future. I congratulate and thank the Campbelltown councillors for their support, especially Mayor George Brticevic, Meg Oates, Darcy Lound, Wal Glynn and Rudi Kolkman.
I acknowledge the support of several unions and their leadership—Andrew and Kathleen Williamson from the AIMPE, Rita Mallia and Brad and Brian Parker from the CFMEU, Graeme Kelly and Steve Donnelly from the USU and Gerard Hayes from the HSU. There are the staff of the New South Wales ALP head office, especially Kaila Murnain. Kaila, I cannot express in words how much your encouragement and support means to me—thank you. I also acknowledge the support of Rose Jackson, Pat Garcia, Jessica Malnersic, and the rest of the team at New South Wales head office for their assistance during the campaign.
I pay tribute to the national secretariat and the shadow cabinet, especially the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, the deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek, and Penny Wong for delivering leadership and a positive campaign with over 250 polices that resonated so well with the voters of Werriwa and Australia. I especially thank and acknowledge the Hon. Chris Bowen and the Hon. Jason Clare for their assistance with my campaign fundraising efforts, and the Hon. Sharon Bird for coming to Werriwa and meeting with TAFE teachers and constituents. I am very proud to be part of this Labor caucus and I thank each of you for your support, encouragement and assistance.
To Loretta Fletcher, Alfat Karnib and Paul Lynch, my work colleagues for the last nine years, it has simply been a pleasure to work with you. It is without a doubt the best place I have ever worked, it was your support and assistance that made it so. To Paul Lynch, New South Wales shadow Attorney-General and member for Liverpool, thank you for everything you have done to support and mentor me over my 20 years in the party. Your patience, belief and inspiration are one of the reasons that I am able to stand as the representative for Werriwa. Thank you for your confidence in me. And to Deb Ferguson, thank you for the cups of tea, biscuits and letterboxing and all that pre-poll. You helped me keep my sanity and I value our friendship. I also appreciate the very helpful advice and assistance offered by Adam Tyndall in the preparation of this speech.
My life is enriched by many friends and I thank you for your support and practical help over the years, some are in the audience today—Michelle Cross, Kim and Alan Bradley, Kirstyn and Amanda, Kim, John and Richelle Ellery and Alison Megarrity.
Lastly, and probably not before time, to my family: I thank my grandparents John and Winfred Mee and Henry and Ivy Davison for choosing Australia as their home. My parents William and Margaret Mee—I hope I make you proud; you ensured that your daughters knew they could do anything. To my sister Kathy and her beautiful daughters Lizzy and Evie, and Adrian, thank you—I couldn't have done it without you, and certainly not this speech! For the longest time, Kathy, it was just you and me against the world. I am so proud of what you have achieved, Dr Mee; I love you so much.
To my husband Larry for your love and support over the past 33 years; thank you for making our home a place where I could pursue my ambitions and dreams. I could not have done it without you. My children Michael, Matthew, Meaghan, Andrew and Christopher and their partners, Chantell, Kate and Shivawn. Matthew, Andrew and Christopher I am so proud of you; you are wonderful young men, and graduates pursuing your career goals. I revel in your achievements. I love you to the Moon and back. And finally to Meaghan and Horatio; my wonderful grandchildren. It is for your generation I want to make a difference and create an Australia and a world of which you will be proud.
Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. This bill by amending the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 gives the effect to a new tax treaty between Australia and Germany. This new treaty modernises the existing bilateral tax arrangements to bring them into the 21st century. This new treaty will create new training opportunities for Australian businesses and will encourage trade and investment that is critical for our businesses to export, expand and employ more Australians.
This new treaty will also help ensure that multinational corporations pay the tax that they should be paying and further demonstrates Australia's resolve to stamp out international tax avoidance. I commend the bill to the House.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I would very much like to thank the minister as she leaves the chamber for voting for my second reading amendment. It is rare that one moves second reading amendment in this place that is supported by the government. But to have the House carry the second reading amendment was indeed a pleasing day for the opposition. In this instance I shall not be moving a second reading amendment, tempted as I am to see how many second reading amendments can get past the folks opposite.
Labor supports this bill because it mirrors our commitment to establish Innovate Australia, an independent agency to guide the government's approach to innovation policy. It is a shame that the government has not adopted the comprehensive approach Labor took to innovation policy in government and has continued from opposition.
What this government is presenting as innovation policy is really just what you would get if you had googled '10 ideas to improve innovation in Australia'. It is a piecemeal approach, which is poorly thought through and shows little understanding of the realities of the role played by innovation across the economy—in established businesses, on shop floors as much as within start-ups and new tech firms.
The Industry Research and Development Amendment (Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2016 amends the Industry Research and Development Act in two ways: it transitions the current Innovation Australia board to a new independent body called Innovation and Science Australia; and it inserts a statutory framework to provide legislative authority for Commonwealth spending activities in relation to industry innovation in science and research programs.
Labor supports this bill because it emulates Labor's commitment to establish Innovate Australia, an independent agency to guide government approach to innovation policy. We announced our policy before the election and we are very pleased that the Turnbull government has adopted it. Since Mr Turnbull became Prime Minister in September last year, the word 'innovation' has become de rigeur. After being banned under former Prime Minister Abbott, it is suddenly ubiquitous even in places where does not particularly fit.
Labor's approach not simply one of using buzzwords and catchphrases where it happens to suit the prime minister of the day. We set in place a 10-year innovation agenda in government, known as Powering Ideas. The Abbott-Hockey government in 2014 ripped more than $3 billion out of science, research and innovation programs and the much-hyped Science Agenda of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and then Industry minister Christopher Pyne restored less than one third of that funding.
The goals of Labor's innovation policy are tied up in our commitment to Labor values and in our understanding of the importance of innovation to social progress. The challenge of an effective innovation agenda is to reshape and focus the economy to create high skilled high-wage jobs of the future. That is why Labor, at the last election, announced investment of more than $1 billion in a suite of measures in science and research on top of our commitments in schools, TAFE and universities.
The need to foster a culture of innovation is why we cannot focus narrowly on start-ups. It is why at the last election we were committed to supporting 100,000 young people, especially women, studying STEM, by giving them a HECS discount on completion. It is why we were committed to a national digital workforce plan to expand the stock of ICT workers by 2020. It is why we were committed to a start-up year at universities so universities could develop their ideas, get business know-how and connect with finance. It is why we were committed to boosting the skills of 25,000 current primary and high school teachers to teach STEM. It is why we went to the Australian people encouraging the notion of getting start-ups to help solve government problems through challenge platforms and supporting start-ups to compete in government tenders. It is why at the last election we were committed to giving every child the opportunity to learn coding or computational skills at primary and secondary school, and to working with industry to establish a $9 million national coding in schools centre to develop the resources and expertise required.
There are particular problems that can be solved by somebody who codes. In my work at the Australian National University, I would use mostly Stata but sometimes SPSS or SAS in order to solve statistical problems. But the process of learning to code can also be important. Many gen Xers will remember their experience learning to code in BASIC—a language that has now largely gone the way of the dinosaurs but which provides the building blocks for rigorous thinking, for understanding randomness and the role that loops play, and for understanding the importance of step-by-step instructions and debugging. All of these are important skills for a range of careers in mathematics, science and engineering. So Labor's encouragement of coding was recognising that coding skills at the school level can provide a bedrock for science careers later on. It was in the same way that the Australia in the Asian century white paper proposed to allow every young Australian in secondary school to study a priority Asian language. Of course, you need the National Broadband Network for that. It is useful to have the National Broadband Network with fibre to the premises in delivering these initiatives as well.
By contrast, the record of the Abbott-Turnbull government has been cuts, cuts and more cuts. Since the 2013 election, the Abbott-Turnbull government's budgets have: abolished the Innovation Investment Fund, abolished Commercialisation Australia, defunded National ICT Australia, cut the CSIRO, cut the Australian Research Council, cut the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, cut from Cooperative Research Centres, cut from the Research Training Scheme, cut from Geoscience Australia, cut from the Bureau of Meteorology, cut from Defence Science and Technology Organisation, cut from Sustainable Research Excellence, cut from the R&D tax incentive, abolished the Enterprise Solutions Program, abolished Industry Innovation Precincts, cut the Australian Industry Participation plans, cut from the TCF co-investment programs, abolishing Enterprise Connect, and attempts to abolish ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This cutting agenda is at odds with the government's stated goal of making Australia an innovation nation. Australia can only succeed as an innovation nation if we are able to invest in the skills and the jobs of the future.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, in the chamber, is part of a government which is making cuts in renewables investment. I have seen in my electorate of Fenner the benefits of the hard work that is being done.
You struggled with that.
Minister Hunt correctly points out that I struggled with that, because I was thinking of a program of the Australian National University in my former electorate of Fraser but not in my current electorate of Fenner. For the minister's benefit, let me say a few words about that innovation program and the way that it is at risk from this government. The research being done at the Australian National University into solar, like the research being done at the CSIRO, means jobs of the future in renewables. Here we have a government that wants to fearmonger about renewables; it takes the excuse of a weather event to fearmonger about renewables jobs, despite the fact that almost all of the new electricity investment over the course of the past decade has been in renewables and the fact that innovation in renewables is a core part of the Australian renewables agenda.
The work that Australian universities do is absolutely vital in laying the platform for industry to succeed. That research needs to have the ability to focus on areas where scientists see new opportunities. If it is too boxed in, too directed, we may not come up with truly breakthrough innovations. Take the example of wi-fi, developed at CSIRO. The wi-fi technology came out of mathematical work on fast Fourier transforms. The scientists were not working on that particular problem with the goal of developing wi-fi, but they were able to develop wi-fi from it. That demonstrates the risk of telling scientists that they must only work on problems where, from the outset, they can see the commercialisation path. Great breakthroughs such as wi-fi often involve a little tinkering—giving great scientists the resources they need in order to make breakthrough innovation.
We on this side of the House understand how innovation happens. We understand the importance of supporting scientists to do great bench research. Here in the ACT I am extremely fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with a range of the entrepreneurs who are at various start-up hubs across the ACT. The work of innovators in the ACT goes to innovators in defence technologies, in ICT, in textiles—right across the spectrum. They are young innovators and old innovators, and the innovation hub in the centre of the ACT has the highest share of women of any innovation hub across the country.
So while Labor support this bill, we do so with a wish that Australia had a government that could truly stand behind an innovation and science agenda. We do so with a wish that Australia had a government that could move beyond buzzwords and the sort of innovation agenda you would get if you googled '10 ideas for boosting innovation' to a true innovation agenda that transforms Australian thinking, through schools and universities and through providing opportunities for Australians to invest in science and reap the benefits through entrepreneurship.
I rise today to speak on the Industry Research and Development Amendment (Innovation and Science Australia) Bill. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill because my electorate of Ryan is home to many outstanding research facilities and scientific minds, and this bill will provide a strong foundation for the future of science and innovation across Australia. This bill establishes the new independent body Innovation and Science Australia (ISA). ISA will be responsible for strategic, whole-of-government advice and for setting direction on all science, research and innovation matters, and is a measure of the Turnbull government's commitment to its National Innovation and Science Agenda. As the peak government body for science and innovation in Australia, ISA will publish its research and advice, and will publicly advocate reforms on key issues such as innovation investment, innovation and, most importantly, collaboration. Testament to our government's fiscal responsibility, ISA will better plan and use Australia's investment in research and development. Additionally, the bill will create a statutory framework for the minister to prescribe industry, innovation, science and research programs by legislative instrument.
Industry research, development and innovation are well and truly established in my electorate of Ryan, which boasts some of the world's leading innovators, discoveries and research. This bill will strengthen and encourage further collaboration and work in the sector. In fact, through the establishment of ISA, the coalition government will strengthen extensive business and community stakeholder links with domestic and international players.
This provides me with the perfect segue into how local Ryan SMEs and researchers are tapping into global expertise. Several Ryan electorate businesses and researchers will each receive $7,000 in grants under the government's Global Connections Fund. These grants will support people like Mark Blaskovich from the University of Queensland, Scott Chapman and Ashleigh Cousins from the CSIRO, and Dietmar Hutmacher of Biofabrication Design Solutions to work with their international counterparts on early-stage collaborative meetings and projects that address industry needs. By ISA's assisting key collaborations, these researchers will be able to translate their world-class science and research into growth opportunities.
Life Sciences Queensland, LSQ, is another outstanding example of the calibre of science and research organisations in the Ryan electorate. Headed by their indomitable CEO Mario Pennisi, LSQ supports and grows Queensland's reputation as an international centre of life science and commercial research excellence. LSQ works hard to bring together appropriate players to make a contribution that will strengthen Queensland's and our country's future in life science sectors including human health care, animal health and biotechnology. I look forward to working further with LSQ and Mario Pennisi to ensure Queensland research, innovation and science are supported by ISA to continue their great achievements.
I am proud to say that the prestigious University of Queensland now ranks 55th in the top universities of the world and, importantly, is in the top 10 in commercialisation. Having recently celebrated 80 years of teaching in medicine, the University of Queensland boasts internationally acclaimed researchers like Professor Ian Frazer. Professor Frazer, a local Ryan constituent, was the developer of the HPV vaccine. As an adviser to the World Health Organization, he has dedicated his life to research and the betterment of humankind. Indeed, in his spare time you will see him contributing back to the local community, where he supports the local Rotary and other organisations with wonderful work.
I am sure there are a few members here who cringe at the thought of receiving a needle. Well, as a result of another University of Queensland success story, those days may soon be over. University of Queensland's Professor Mark Kendall and his research team have developed Nanopatch as a needle-free technology to deliver vaccinations, including the polio vaccine. Indeed, the World Health Organization has already put on order several million patches, which will be manufactured locally in Brisbane. As one of Australia's premier research institutions, the University of Queensland tackles significant global challenges, from biosciences and nanotechnology through to sustainable development and social science. This bill will continue to support researchers like Professor Frazer and Professor Kendall and their vital work.
The Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies, located at Pinjarra Hills in the Ryan electorate, is Australia's largest integrated research and development precinct. It is a leading facility that will benefit from this bill. QCAT, as it is known, provides world-class science, engineering and innovation to Australian mining and associated industries. A collaboration between CSIRO, the Queensland government and other R&D centres, QCAT is attracting research and developers seeking to benefit from the precinct's offerings. These efforts are testament again to not only the brilliant minds of researchers in my electorate but also the world-class research being conducted in Australia. We were delighted at Boeing's recent announcement that they were expanding their R&D facility at the University of Queensland, which will mean more jobs for local people and more jobs in the important STEM sector.
Australia is spending $10.1 billion each year on science research and innovation at the federal government level alone. The ISA will ensure that this spending is properly targeted and well spent, instead of the current fragmented advice and decision-making. By establishing Innovation and Science Australia, the coalition government is ensuring that today's investment in innovation will create jobs and growth opportunities which will contribute to our economy in the future. Australians and my constituents alike can be assured that the coalition government's $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda places them at the very forefront of industry research and development. This bill creates the right settings to assist existing innovative organisations to grow, and to aid new innovative market entries. I congratulate the minister and commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Industry Research and Development Amendment (Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2016, which was introduced recently by the minister, who is in the House. It gives us a great opportunity to reflect on where we are headed in this space. From my own particular point of view, having had the digital economy and future work added to my portfolio of responsibilities of, for which I am grateful, these types of things are very big issues for the nation, both now and into the future. Our digital economy was estimated by Deloitte last year to stand at about $80 billion, which is not a small thing. It is estimated that it will rise in future years to nearly $140 billion and the application of digital technology is set to provide a huge economic bonanza, not just in terms of extra businesses and the value of those businesses and their output, but obviously in terms of jobs. It is very important.
But what has happened in this space in the immediate aftermath of the election is interesting. Last year everybody was talking about innovation—everyone was talking about how big it was to the country. There was a big focus on early-stage innovation particularly. Both the member for Griffith and I have taken a deep interest in this for quite some time. We actually spent time over in Silicon Valley earlier this year, where we visited places like 500 Startups, which is one of the great examples of how to build start-up communities and, in particular, new firms that are providing opportunities for jobs. In the Australian context we can see from figures produced by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science that between 2003 and 2014 two million net new jobs were created by very young enterprises. A lot of those are start-ups.
But all the focus that we saw on start-ups has gone. It seems to have literally disappeared from the political landscape in this country. I do not know why. I would be interested in knowing why there has been such a retreat. The start-up community in Australia was very supportive of the Turnbull government. They were very vocal in their support of some of the things that are being done, but you hardly hear the new minister, who is here today, talk about them. In fact, he is leading the retreat from any discussion on start-ups. Agility these days equals speed a retreat—that is what agility means. The exciting time to beat a retreat is right now under this new minister, who brings in these bills that ostensibly are part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. I basically see a lot of this stuff as being make-work for a minister who is not really interested in championing the cause of start-ups.
The argument now is that we need to broaden it out—that there are existing SMEs for which we need to be focused on how to make them innovate more. On paper that sounds great, but the reality is that it is quite different. Those opposite do not have the capacity to argue the case for the start-up sector in this country, because they have detected that there is a degree of reticence in the Australian community about the impact of technological change on jobs. There is no denying that is there. It is a reality. But the key for us is to keep focusing on the huge job-creating capacity of start-ups in this country, from the figures I have quoted before, and also to help manage the change going forward. But there is absolutely no game plan from those opposite. It is why the federal opposition has added specifically a responsibility within our shadow ministry for looking at the future of work to deal with the fact that automation will change the nature of work in this country, as it will in most advanced economies. It will change jobs right from entry-level ones through to jobs that are being done now by white-collar people in blue-collar people.
You have 3-D printed homes in China, as is happening right now, and you see entry-level jobs that have completely changed because automation is doing the work that people used to do. Look at some of the categories. For instance, drivers' jobs will change as they potentially are impacted by self-driving vehicles. Even this afternoon I was speaking to people about how journalists, for instance, can see automation occurring within their field, as well. The reality is that those jobs are going to change. Between 10 and 40 per cent of jobs will be impacted by automation and we need a game plan not. Those opposite do not have it. When they pick up the anxiety of the general public in relation to this issue, they retreat. They equate any talk about start-ups and early-stage innovation with causing an anxiety that they are unable to deal with.
You can see that inability in the way that they fail to support school funding in this country, in the way that they fail to support the expansion of TAFE in this country and in the way that they fail to support the proper expansion of universities and tertiary education in this country. When they retreat, we see what we are getting from this innovation minister. I am surprised about the comments I am picking up from the start-up community about the blase nature of this innovation minister towards the start-up community. Prominent members of the start-up community have told me—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
What, so that you can go on a witch-hunt. Prominent members of the start-up community have told me that they have tried to meet with you, Minister, and have been told that they can meet with an adviser. Roundtables are held instead of actually going and meeting with the community itself. Why is it that we have this? The reason is that you have an inability to engage with the sector. Ever since you have come into the job—
Don't come in here and make a concocted, fabricated—
I do not need to fabricate anything, Minister, because I am picking it up on the ground and I know the people have said to me—
Order! I remind the shadow minister to address the chair.
People have said to me, 'I cannot believe the minister is not interested in meeting with us but instead just relegates it to an adviser-level meeting instead of doing the job properly.'
Mr Hunt interjecting—
No. Do you know why? Everyone knows, Minister Hunt, that on that side of politics if you dare say anything against this government you will be on the list and you will cop all sorts of bad treatment. The reality is that people know you are not up to the task, Minister, of being able to champion the issues for the start-up community. And so, instead of recognising the reality that in terms of the rate of formation of start-ups in this country—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
I've got him going! I have never seen so much animation and energy from him. If only he had delivered it in the short space of time that he has been an innovation minister. Also overseeing—
The world's greatest minister.
The world's greatest minister, exactly. The nation did welcome that with a degree of 'wide-spread irony', I believe the term is—that was the way it was received. At any rate—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
No, you should go out. You should go and tell people. That is how you should introduce yourself, Minister: the world's greatest minister. 'I'm Greg Hunt. I'm the world's greatest minister.' Go and talk to people like that. I actually extend to you the invitation to do that.
The realisation is this: it is not in your heart to champion them. You are not out there championing them. You are not recognising the fact that the rate of start-up formation in this country, relative to other countries, is low and that we need to deal with it. If you think that the ecosystem will purely be sustained by focusing on established businesses and that they will drive innovation of themselves without dealing with the fact that start-ups and the early-stage innovation sector—the early green shoots of innovation in this country—are not being formed at the rate of elsewhere, it needs to get the focus now; otherwise, what happens is that we just import ideas. That is all we do—we import ideas and other processes instead of doing it ourselves.
That is the reality—that if you do not provide that focus to early-stage innovation and ensure that the capital and the talent is flowing into the sector, all that will happen is that we will see atrophy. We will be the first to come second. That is what will be happening—instead of being able to rely on our own skills to see the growth of start-ups in this country, the growth of those ideas and the embracing of these by SMEs and big businesses.
At this stage, there is absolutely no promise that this government will continue to champion it, certainly not under this minister, and there will be a continued inability to argue for the types of things that do need to change. These include the need to deal with the crippling shortages of skills that will help sustain those start-ups and get them ready for growth, and the need for the investment that is required to sustain those ideas and see their expansion. I noticed, for example, that the minister has announced the expansion of the accelerator program, which we had argued—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
It was not your idea, actually. Someone else had to think of it for you. It was an idea that was announced during the campaign as a result of the type of pressure that the federal opposition was putting on the government to increase the amount of investment that you had dedicated. The reality is that you only set aside $8 million for that accelerator support. It is now $25 million or $23 million. It was expanded because, when we were going around the nation, in regional Australia, and saying that we should be seeing start-up communities emerge beyond city boundaries and that we needed more support for that, such as working with the higher education sector, working with local chambers of commerce, working with others—
Have you been to the University of Wollongong?
Yes, I have actually. I have been to the University of Wollongong.
When?
Two years ago and last year.
I was there two weeks ago.
Good for you. That is great. It is great to see that you actually do something, and it would be interesting to see if you can up come with an idea other than something that was championed by Christopher Pyne or in response to the pressure that we have been putting on, but we will not see you champion that.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
We will wait and see, Minister. As I said, what has become obvious is that we do need to have more of a focus in this space. Other countries have worked out that if they mobilise and put the commitment in early, they will see the response. They will see communities emerge where early-stage innovation is embraced, new firms are being created and jobs are being generated, as a result of that, to deal with the type of job impact that happens through technological change and automation. And people will see that it is not just in the heart of cities that this type of innovation occurs, but that it came happen in the regions—like in Bega. I visited Bega with the member for Eden-Monaro last year and earlier this year, and we saw the types of things that were happening there in innovation week. A small start-up community has emerged there. It is backed up by local people who are willing to invest in that innovation, and we saw that type of job creation emerge there.
Why shouldn't it happen down there in Bega? Why shouldn't it happen out in Maitland—where I visited earlier—where start-ups are looking to secure markets in Australia, the US and Europe?
Mr Kelly interjecting—
They are backed by a proper investment in platform infrastructure, as rightly pointed out by my colleague and friend the member for Eden-Monaro, in the NBN, which needs to happen as well. Why should it not happen in other parts of the country as well, where they believe that they can turn around economic fortune by an investment in people, skills and infrastructure to make that occur? It should not be something that is just restricted to the inner city. It should be something that sees knowledge jobs created out in our suburbs and regions. That needs a championing as well for the resources to go in there.
It is not going to happen if you purely think that the only way you are going to do it is by driving innovation or adopting someone else's idea without having a solid, early-stage innovation culture being generated in this country. That is what is at risk right now. Your retreat from the start-up community in this country, your failure to talk up for them and this whole diluting of this message that we are seeing, right now, is a terrible indictment. It is also a failure to support a start-up community that invested a lot of itself in supporting the Turnbull government and that believed you would be able to continue championing their cause, but they cannot see that being delivered right now. The test will be whether or not we see a change. But based on the early indications, I do not think that there will be. I think this is a government that are now settled in their view that it is too tricky, too difficult and beyond their wit and capability to argue that, because the world is going to change through automation and technology, we need to be ready for it, we can be ready for it and we can maximise the benefit to the economy and communities across the country. We also need to ensure that, when others in the world want to work out how thriving start-up communities can emerge, they look to Australia for a change, instead of us always having to look to another part of the world—to Silicon Valley, to Israel or to somewhere else—to learn lessons. We should be driving the lessons, not the other way around. (Time expired)
It is a real pleasure to follow the member for Chifley in relation to the Industry Research and Development Amendment (Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2016 because he has been one of Australia's leading proponents of the start-up sector and of innovation for a very long time. We are very fortunate to have him on this side of the House because he is such a passionate advocate for the sector and for high-growth start-up firms. He is someone who has a wealth of knowledge in relation to the issues facing the sector.
That is why he was able to do such great work in really leading the charge in developing crowdsourced equity funding in this country. I was very fortunate to follow him in the debate on the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015 as well. He outlined some of the changes that needed to be made in relation to that bill not just because of his own view, his own opinion, but also because the stakeholders had been calling for changes. For example, there were some really pragmatic, sensible changes that AVCAL—the Australian Private Equity and Venture Capital Association Limited—had proposed to make the crowdsourced equity funding provisions more workable. I am very fortunate to have done some work with AVCAL.
In the last parliament, the now Speaker and I formed a bipartisan group—the Parliamentary Friends of Innovation and Enterprise. We worked across the sector. We worked with AVCAL, and we heard from venture capitalists and angel investors. We involved the university sector, we involved start-ups themselves, and we involved everyone with an interest in innovation in this country and, specifically, with an interest in relation to start-ups and new high-growth enterprises. I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to work with AVCAL and many other stakeholders in that process. They are the people at the front line. They are the people who have a real understanding of what it is going to take to do something about the fact that, in Australia, there is more money punted on the Melbourne Cup than there is invested in early-stage start-ups.
I am pleased to speak in support of this bill because, in fact, Innovate Australia was our policy. It is a policy that the coalition mirrored. It is a policy that we announced—
Oh, yes?
Check the scoreboard, mate! I should not have called you 'mate'. You are not my mate; that is very clear. I should have called you 'minister'. My mates tend to be more interested in promoting the interests of start-ups and high-growth firms—people like the member for Chifley, who is my mate, and I am very pleased that he is.
Of course, the interesting thing about the policy is that we announced our policy to establish a new entity called Innovate Australia, based on the highly successful UK model, and then a very short time later the coalition decided to announce the same policy. So we support the creation of an entity that mirrors our policy. We are very pleased that the coalition reached out and had some bipartisanship on that aspect of our innovation policies, but we wish that they would adopt more of our policies that we took to the election in relation to innovation because ours were better and more comprehensive.
Specifically, what is happening here is a very piecemeal approach to innovation in this country. That is not good enough because there is a pressing imperative to diversify Australia's economy and early-stage, high-growth firms are an important part of that diversification. We would encourage the government to continue reading our policies that we announced before the election and to consider what other parts of our platform it might be interested in implementing so that we can work together to do that. In fact, if the government is looking for other inspiration, it could take a leaf out of the book of Minister Enoch in Queensland—a visionary minister in the Queensland Labor government led by Annastacia Palaszczuk. In her first term as a member of parliament, she became the innovation minister and went into bat for the importance of supporting innovation in Queensland and the diversification of our economy. The consequence of that is the incredibly successful advance of the Queensland program, which has been supported to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. These things are so important because of that pressing need to diversify, because we need to know where the jobs of the future are going to come from and because high-growth firms are job creators.
I know that it can be scary. It can be worrying for a parent; I am a parent myself. My kids are six and four, and Troy and I often worry about the jobs that our kids will have access to in the future when they are a bit older. I know that it is very concerning for a parent to try to look into the future and guess what sorts of jobs are going to exist and what sorts of skills the kids are going to need in order to have those jobs. But that is a reason to be bolder, not more cautious. It is a reason to press ahead with reform, not retreat to the idea that we just close our eyes and hope that things might not change. That is not going to work. We have to embrace the opportunities that are going to be brought by the new and emerging economy. That includes the necessity of thinking about how innovation policy can support high-growth firms that can create jobs.
I said that the government could look for inspiration from the balance of our platform. Of course I wanted to mention the shadow minister, who is here with us tonight—the member for Chifley—but other leaders amongst the parliamentary Labor Party also put together a phenomenal platform to take to the election in relation to innovation. I could not possibly talk about all of it because we would be here for another five hours if I tried to do that. But I want to mention that that policy really aimed at looking at where the money is going to come from to invest in these early-stage firms, how are we going to make sure that people who have great ideas can pitch for the capital that is available and how are they going to be supported through the information that they need? Anyone who has ever started a business would know that you need lots of information and support. You need to know practical things such as: how do you employ people legally and how on earth do you deal with suppliers and the tax office?
There is a range of things that need to be done in that regard, and of course we need policies that will do other things. We need policies that will promote the right skills.
That is why I was so pleased to announce, with the member for Chifley and of course with the Leader of the Opposition in Sydney last year, a program to get girls into coding. We had Code Club there. They were doing a program at Sydney Town Hall, and there were so many young people, but particularly girls—teenage girls learning coding and learning computational thinking through physical objects. It was an amazing place to be and it was a fantastic program.
When I first came to this place and we were talking about coding being needed for primary schools, in 2014, the coalition government laughed at the idea that we would have coding in primary schools. I think they really just did not understand the imperative. And now whenever I go into schools and I see the digital literacy curriculum being rolled out and I see the support the Queensland government is giving to schools in my state that are doing that and I talk to teachers and I talk to principals and I talk to parents—there is such a big move on to make sure that computational thinking is being taught.
My portfolio responsibility is higher education, and I was lucky recently to visit the Queensland University of Technology's school holiday STEM camp to see kids from across almost 200 schools in Queensland, to actually be at these different projects happening at that camp. There is an amazing piece of work being done in relation to biomanufacturing where they are 3D modelling people's ears for kids who are born without one of their ears. A mould is created for that, and the kids were learning about 3D printing in a form of silicon so that kids can have a second ear. I was so fortunate to see those grade 11 kids actually getting hands-on experience of that really serious and fascinating research and biomanufacturing project, led by Associate Professor Mia Woodruff at the Queensland University of Technology.
So, getting those skills right is important, from early education through school through vocational education through universities, and I am so proud of the policies we took to the election in relation to those things from capital to supporting the start-up sector and having an Australia in which it is possible to see how people could benefit from these new and emerging businesses in the future. Just to give you an example, I was recently given the opportunity to go to Commerce Queensland—or, I should say, the CCIQ, nowadays; I am showing my age! They have a collaboration with BlueChilli. People would know about BlueChilli, which is a really significant and leading accelerator program. The founder of the program came and spoke to a Friends of Innovation event for us when we kicked it off. They have a really great collaboration—Collaborate—in Queensland. The member for Chifley and the shadow Treasurer and Pat O'Neill and I were very fortunate to go for a tour through Collaborate and then address the stakeholders who were involved in that.
When we were there we talked to a lot of the start-ups that were just starting up their businesses, getting ready, looking at how to be high-growth, and I met this amazing man. He has a vision that I think every member of this House could get behind: a vision to make beer a force for good—
It already is a force for good!
even more of a force for good, member for Wakefield, than it already is. That man is James Grugeon, and his business, The Good Beer Co, is working with organisations to find a social purpose for beer. It is a social enterprise that channels profits from beers into social purposes. There is a really great example. They have been doing work with the Australian Marine Conservation Society, one of Australia's leading environmental organisations, a society that is working tirelessly to do things like protect the Great Barrier Reef and protect and lobby for marine reserves. They are an amazing organisation. I have had a lot to do with them and I am always inspired when I get to talk with them. They have a collaboration with The Good Beer Co aimed at having people drink beer in order to support the Great Barrier Reef. You just could not think of a better thing to do on a Friday night than have a beer and at the same time support the Great Barrier Reef.
These are the sorts of new and innovative enterprises that are starting to emerge. The example I just gave was of a social enterprise, which is a particular type of enterprise that aims to have a social purpose, whether for profit or not. Most of them are for-profit enterprises—people who want to make money and do good, which I heartily support. Those sorts of new enterprises are fledgling in this country, but they can be incredibly successful if the policy settings are right. As I said, if the government wants to find inspiration for how to get those policy settings right, they are more than welcome to look at other parts of our policy that they might wish to mirror in the way that they have mirrored it in this bill for Innovate Australia. But they could also look to Queensland. I am a Queenslander, and I am a proud Queenslander. It is wonderful to be a Queenslander, not just because of our amazing history in winning the State of Origin so often, so many times, and not just because of people like Johnathan Thurston and Cameron Smith.
An honourable member: You always bring that up.
Yes, we do always bring this up. I will take that interjection. We certainly do always bring up our sporting prowess. But the other prowess that I want to mention is our prowess in supporting innovation and start-ups. I want to pay tribute to Minister Leeanne Enoch for the work she has done. Advance Queensland is aimed at making Queensland the nation's innovation leader, not just the State of Origin leader. It is a $405 million program that was announced this year to build on the work the Palaszczuk government has done since being elected. It feels like they have been there a long time, because they have achieved so much, but they were actually elected only in 2015. They have done so much in that time, and this package is so important because it really, as a budget centrepiece, is aimed at building on the work that has been done to diversify our Queensland economy. What I love about it is that it is taking the original Advance Queensland program, which was almost $200 million in investment in the government's first year as a government, and turning it into a whole-of-government plan—a whole-of-government innovation agenda worth $405 million.
Queensland is backing the innovators—start-ups, small business as well as schoolkids, farmers, scientists, researchers, tradespeople, engineers, doctors, teachers—to create a new era of opportunity. That is including work that is being done in the cities, including my city of Brisbane, but also in a way that is highly consistent with what federal Labor did, looking at how on earth we are going to help make sure that in the regions people have the same opportunities as kids in the cities have to really promote their good ideas and to turn them into good businesses.
One of the things that is being done is support for regional innovation hubs, including the Cairns Innovation Centre that is being established. We really support that, because we know that innovation should be something that improves economic activity and opportunities for the entire country, not just for people in the cities. So I want to commend the bill. Of course we support the bill, but it should go much further. It is too piecemeal. There is much more to be done, and there is plenty of inspiration from the Labor Party policies.
I rise to speak on the Industry Research and Development Amendment (Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2016. It is good to see a furious bipartisanship emerging in this parliament on innovation, because that is what we need. These ideas, this research and science and progress, last longer than any one government or administration here—certainly, at the rate we have been going through them in recent years—and probably outlasts all of our contributions in this House.
What we do need is a fairly long-term, bipartisan and consensus-based approach. We do see that. In 1990 the Hawke government established the cooperative research centres. Over 26 years some $4 billion has been allocated. Over that time 211 cooperative research centres have been established, and they have done wonderful things. In 2009 Labor had a national innovation strategy called Powering Ideas. In the last year we were in government innovation funds had grown to $10 billion; that was a 50 per cent increase over the time that we were in government. So Labor has a proud record in this area, and we intend to build on it when the Shorten government takes its place in this parliament. It will not be long now, given the way the current mob are going.
We are happy to support this bill because it does good things that will provide a framework for us to do things in government. As my two colleagues have observed, it largely mirrors Labor's policy approach in any event.
One observation I would like to make about innovation is that we have been very, very good in this country at talking about what we have missed, and very good at talking ourselves down. Often we adopt a whole series of myths about the fact, as is commonly said, that we are good at inventing things and bad at commercialising things. In a global world, with global supply chains, this is outdated thinking. It is really 1970s thinking. We really have to be better at selling ourselves, at backing our good ideas, at realising, as the shadow minister said, that we should be celebrating things that are happening here and leading the world here. In order to do that, we really have to celebrate our successes.
Last Thursday I was lucky enough to go to Australian Institute of Nanoscale Science and Technology. This was a building at the University of Sydney. It was funded with some $40 million to build it, funded in the last Labor government. It is an achievement that we should be very proud of. This institute will benefit the whole of Australia and will exist over many different governments of many different political persuasions. Regardless of our party identification we should be celebrating this Australian Institute of Nanoscale Science and Technology. It will undoubtedly make a huge contribution to science and research, not just in our country, but around the globe.
I have to thank the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Duncan Ivison, and Kirsten Andrews for organising the visit, and particularly the director of the institute, Professor Thomas Maschmeyer, Associate Professor Maryanne Large, Professor Zdenka Kuncic, Professor David Reilly and Associate Professor Michael Biercuk. As you can tell, they are from around the world, and no doubt the shadow minister will correct my pronunciation in subsequent speeches when he visits them. This institute and the people who work in it are really extraordinary people in an extraordinary facility, a world-beating facility which is working hand in hand with industry, in this case Microsoft, and doing it all from our international city, Sydney. I would recommend this document, The next giant leap is seriously small, to members. It is a very good document. I recommend that all members visit the institute. For those who think that these things do not have some effect on our everyday life or on other debates in this building, there are people with expertise in physics, chemistry, engineering and medical science, all working in the one building, all sitting around the one table and all interacting in research that really will change the world and industry.
One of the products they are looking at is super-strong steel. That has a very real application, I would imagine, to the Australian steel industry, where we have to add value and we cannot just be producing what is essentially now a commodity. We have to be adding value and we have to be using science and innovation in order to do that.
I would like to commend the institute for its good work and I commend the bill to the House. I hope that we have a furious bipartisanship in this policy area and that our differences in this area are small and our advances are very big.
I want to thank all of the speakers in this debate on the Industry Research and Development Amendment (Innovation and Science Australia) Bill and make some brief observations. Firstly, the member for Ryan pointed out the role of the University of Queensland in her own electorate. I know that the vice-chancellor and I have had discussions, and I intend to visit them and talk about the innovation and start-up approach going forward with his university and the work that they are doing.
Secondly, we heard some Walter Mitty-like comments from a series of opposition speakers, where they seemed to fantasise that they had somehow been responsible for the work of the government in creating the National Innovation and Science Agenda. I would actually rather give credit to my predecessor, who is in the chamber at this moment, as something which was created on his watch and is being delivered on ours. I will give credit where credit is due to my predecessor.
Let me give the House a brief update on progress because, since this bill itself has been introduced, we have made extraordinary progress. Over the last three months, since 1 July, the National Innovation and Science Agenda has been going forward at, potentially, the fastest pace in Australian history. In particular, let me run through what we are doing about culture and capital, investment and collaboration in big science by bringing talent—young women as well as young men—into the science, technology, engineering and maths space before looking at where we are going, in the future, and then just concluding on the bill itself.
In terms of investment, just in the last few weeks we have achieved a series of things. We have launched the Biomedical Translation Fund—a $500 million fund—to take science from the lab and commercialise it, whether it is through start-ups or existing firms. Already, we have seen a huge response with more than triple the capital sought by the federal government being offered by the private sector. That is a stunning success. It lays the foundation for a national innovation fund on a broader scale, which I have outlined as an agenda item since coming into the portfolio, as part of a second wave of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. The Biomedical Translation Fund is already far exceeding our best possible expectations, and that was launched on 3 August. Similarly, the tax incentives for early-stage investors—the 'angel investors' program—is in place and up and running. It has already received considerable support from within the venture capital community, through my discussions, the start-up community and through the financial sector.
The new arrangements for Venture Capital Limited Partnerships have come into effect. The CSIRO accelerator program has already been announced. I launched the incubator support program at Stone & Chalk only a few weeks ago. Whilst I was there I met with numerous different start-ups and had discussions with them, and it has been a real privilege to work with that sector. So far, meetings have included the Australian Private Equity & Venture Capital Association; StartupAUS; Stone & Chalk; a variety of firms at the University of Wollongong in their incubator; the Australian Information Industry Association and a huge network of firms that we met, with them, in an extended discussion about the needs of the sector; AusBiotech; and the University of Newcastle, where we launched only last week Australia's first—and the Australian government's first—medical precinct task force. The university precinct task force created a hub, a cluster or a precinct built around the new medical school—the Central Coast Medical School and Research Institute, which the member for Robertson, Lucy Wicks, fought for and is now delivering. So they will not just stop at the construction jobs or the 750 jobs associated with the medical school once it is up and running. They will create a whole additional wave of employment through an incubator and start-up program built around it, and we announced that only last week.
To go on, we worked with Tyro, Seatfrog and other start-ups within the Tyro network. We had discussions with people such as Daniel Petri and Bill Ferris, Blackbird Ventures and many others that are slated to come forward. I have been fortunate enough in my life, prior to coming into this place, to work with McKinsey & Company in this space. It is one of those long and abiding personal passions of my career to have been associated with the foundation of one of Australia's great start-up firms, Aconex, which is now worth more than $1 billion, and I had the fortune of being involved right at the commencement of their operations. As a foundation investor I have seen and lived this journey, and it remains one of my great passions. To be in this space now is a tremendous honour.
In collaboration we have handed over the synchrotron and the Commonwealth now has title and responsibility. We have launched the Global Innovation Strategy, in terms of the Global Connections Fund—the Priming Grants. We have launched the Global Innovation Strategy landing pads. We have completed the contract for quantum computing, in terms of what we have done with the University of New South Wales. We have launched the ARC linkage grants. In terms of women in STEM, on 19 August we announced the women in STEM program initiative, which we twinned with the entrepreneurs visa. We have more to come, in relation to the 'inspiring a nation of scientists', with the PM's prize for science, so we could not be moving faster in this space.
Having said that, there is a whole second and third wave of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. The second wave is about private sector investment—driving forward the space with which I have had the fortune to work on, on an almost daily basis, since coming into this role and driving forward the accumulation of private capital and funds into this area. A national innovation fund is an idea which I have proposed, which is gaining considerable traction and which I am very hopeful we will be able to deliver in the first quarter of next year. At the same time we are looking, as part of the second wave of the innovation agenda, additional support for critical science infrastructure, which will come in response to the Chief Scientist's, Alan Finkel's, road map on critical science infrastructure.
The third wave of what we are seeking to do in 2018 is we have already commenced the process of a National Business Simplification Initiative. Dramatically—
Hear, hear!
Oh! the assistant minister is in the chamber. The member for Reid, Craig Laundy, is driving this forward. To give you an example, take registration of a cafe in Western Sydney from seven months down to two months—that is the sort of real-world practical outcome which we want to achieve, because very few things will have more impact on creating new businesses than reducing bureaucracy and red tape. But we are not just going to do it ourselves; we are engaging the states and the councils on this.
The other element of the third wave is a national strategy for university precincts. This has never been done in Australian history. We have never had a national strategy for university precincts, driven from the top, working with each of the 39 public universities in Australia. I am happy to work with the private ones as well. That is where we will see 2¼ times the rate of growth in jobs formation as opposed to the general economy.
The United States and Germany are arguably university driven economies. Australia has had great success on the university front, but we have not been a university driven economy. In my time and my term, that is one thing which I wish to see and to which, as a government, we want to move towards.
That then brings me finally to the bill itself. This bill, as has been discussed, establishes Innovation and Science Australia. It lays out the pathway for the audit. It lays out the pathway for the 2030 plan for innovation and science. We had first, second and third waves of innovation and science. This is about planning right out to 2030. It is taking the long view but twinning it with practical action now. Ultimately, under Bill Ferris and Alan Finkel, Innovation and Science Australia will bring some of the best minds in the country together to attract investment, to drive long-term planning and to help drive government's role as an exemplar.
For those reasons, I want to thank all involved and commend my predecessor and the Prime Minister, who has made this a strong, personal passion. As we drive jobs and prepare for the future, this agenda will be the pathway for assisting the nation to do it and to do it effectively. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That—
(1) Dr Freelander be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia and that, in his place, Ms M. M. H. King be appointed a member of the committee;
(2) Ms M. M. H. King be discharged from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and that, in her place, Dr Freelander be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
There is no high moral ground on the issue of gay marriage when you stand on nothing but hypocrisy, as is the case with the Labor Party. The opposition leader says that Labor will not support the government's bill because it is unnecessary, expensive and divisive. Yet three years ago he held precisely the opposite view. He then said:
… I would rather that the people of Australia could make their view clear on this, than leaving this issue to 150 people.
In 2013 the opposition leader thought it was necessary that the people had their say in a plebiscite. He obviously believed that such an investment in democracy was valid. He clearly believed the Australian people were capable of conducting such a debate.
But that was 2013, not now. Just three years later, the opposition leader has done a 180-degree turn on all points. He now wants only politicians, not the people, to have a say on this issue. The expenditure he favoured three years ago is now apparently too high a price. And in just three years the Australian people have gone from being capable of having this debate to now apparently being incapable. Work that out! None of this whole performance from the opposition leader stacks up. It is just posturing. It is posturing from an opposition leader who has adopted a strategy of hyperpartisanship in the hope it will serve his personal political ambition.
In addition to his 2013 support for a plebiscite as an appropriate way of dealing with this issue, the opposition leader has shown even more recent support for the concept of plebiscites as a valid tool for governments. In this year's election, he pledged $20 million for plebiscites in New South Wales on the issue of forced local government amalgamations—a state government issue, no less. So he had no concerns about the necessity for or cost of plebiscites then.
As for the potential divisiveness of the debate, on this the opposition leader has been an utter disgrace. He has been baiting those who would oppose same-sex marriage. He has been inciting the very form of debate—the nasty form of debate—that he claims he wishes to prevent. His language has been some of the worst that has been used on either side in this debate. He has referred to deaths. He has called people homophobes. He has said people will crawl out from under rocks on this issue. If you wanted to inflame a debate and turn it from as civil an affair as possible into one that is ugly and divisive—whether it is a plebiscite or a vote in the House—then you would talk just as the opposition leader has been talking.
Compare his language to the civil language of our Prime Minister. Or, better still, compare the opposition leader's language with the language previously used by other senior Labor Party people. When this issue was previously discussed in this chamber, the member for Grayndler, the people's choice as Labor leader, said:
… those of us who are arguing for inclusion need to be inclusive in the way we conduct ourselves in this debate.
… … …
We need to be disciplined … about the language and about the way in which the debate is conducted.
Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd changed his view from being opposed to being supportive of same-sex marriage after he had voted against it in 2012, and he was indirectly quoted as saying that if the coalition did not follow Labor to allow a conscience vote, then a national vote should be fairly considered. Senator Wong, in 2010, said:
On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect.
And, as earlier indicated, the current leader of the Labor Party, in the lead-up to the 2013 election, said he was 'completely relaxed' about a plebiscite.
All of those comments were respectful. They all intrinsically acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue. They were the comments, you would think, of mature, sensible people. So, what happened? Why has there been the 180 degree turn? Why has there been the turn on the member for Grayndler's inclusiveness, on the former Prime Minister's proposal for a principled compromise, on Senator Wong's position encouraging respect and on the current opposition leader's former advocacy of the very substance of the government's bill? Labor used to be sensible on this matter. It understood that it was a potential powder keg if not properly, carefully and inclusively handled. This is, after all—as they no doubt know—a fundamental shift in how one of the oldest and most fundamental institutions in our society is defined and recognized. Inevitably, people have strongly held views on both sides of the debate.
Some say that Labor's U-turn happened during the Irish referendum last year where there was considerable controversy. At times, it seemed it was anything but a civil debate in Ireland, yet Labor is wrong to conclude it was the form of the discussion—that it was the process of a referendum—that was the problem. The opposition leader, and now Labor more generally, has concluded that if the issue was just left to politicians the nastiness in the debate would simply disappear. That is garbage. It is absolute nonsense, and even a quick review of the history proves it so.
The French government took responsibility for the decision to legislate same-sex marriage in 2013. In Paris, and in Lyon especially, in association with that move, there were massive anti-gay-marriage demonstrations. In May 2013 an estimated 400,000 people demonstrated in Paris. Tear gas was used to control protesting crowds. Demonstrations have continued since, and where you see such civil unrest it is because the issue has not been resolved socially. Even Nicolas Sarkozy has said that if he is elected president next year he may reverse the law.
That is France. Now, let us take Spain, where politicians took the decision to legalize same-sex marriage in June 2005. A crowd estimated at 166,000 people demonstrated in Madrid. There were many divisive rallies. There was debate, as there is now in France, about whether an incoming government might revoke the law. A court decision in favour of same-sex marriage has defused that possibility in Spain, at least for the time being, but controversy remains. The issue is not socially resolved or settled in Spain, anymore than it is in France, despite those countries adopting a process the Labor Party now favours.
In Italy, there were big anti-gay-marriage protests earlier this year after the government declared it would legislate in favour of gay marriage. Pope Francis was involved in the debate after he said that the traditional family was 'the family God wants'. In a country where over 80 per cent of the people identify as Catholics, that was a powerful intervention. In Mexico, last month, there were major demonstrations across the country opposing the President's intention to unilaterally legalise gay marriage.
Clearly and obviously, plebiscites are not the fuse for divisiveness in debates over same-sex marriage. Divisiveness can occur whether the decision is built around a plebiscite, around political activism or around a vote in the House, But the core observation has to be that severe divisiveness is not inevitable. In some nation states where this issue has been decided by politicians there has, indeed, been minimal social interruption and minimal negativity in the debate. That is especially true across the Scandinavian countries, which were among the earliest to act on the issue. In Britain the debate was long, very detailed and hard fought. But, for the most part, it was civil. Nevertheless, it is obvious, even from a cursory look at the history of this issue around the world, that leaving it to the politicians is no guarantee whatsoever that such a course will automatically calm emotions and ensure a civil debate. The best protection, in that regard, is political leadership which bipartisanly promotes a civil debate—as occurred in Britain and in Scandinavia. Labor has shown that, since 2013 at least, it has lost sight of that fundamental truth. Labor has virtually made sure that there will be disruption by maintaining their current woeful, divisive and ugly rhetoric.
There are other relevant dangers that Labor has not considered. In the likes of France and Spain, where the decision was dealt with by politicians rather than the people, there has been the risk of potential revocation of the laws. That is not an outcome that is even vaguely considered in Ireland, where 62 per cent of the people who voted in the referendum voted in favour of same sex marriage. No future government, in a popularly elected democracy like Ireland, like Australia, is going to even consider repeal of a law that has been endorsed by a majority of electors in a plebiscite.
Labor advocates for gay marriage frequently point to opinion polls arguing that the vast majority of Australians support the change they seek. Labor may well be right in this regard. Why then, if they are confident about Australians voting in favour, would they stand in the way of allowing Australians to have that vote? It defies logic. It just does not make sense because, if they are right, then a plebiscite in Australia is likely to succeed even more strongly than it did in Ireland—especially when you consider that Australia, unlike Ireland—has a system of compulsory voting. In France, and in Spain, resistance remains. The issue has not been settled—and there must therefore remain a sense of unease in the gay communities in those countries. The level of acceptance they crave has not been delivered and doubts remain about what might happen in the future. Labor needs to consider this.
If Labor wants to deliver a clear resolution, one way or another, to the Australian community—and especially to the gay community—then it should once again do a 180-degree turn and support the government's bill. While the future is uncertain, there is one thing we can all be sure of—we can be sure that the date of 11 February 2017 will arrive. Indeed, it is now only four months away. And when that day comes those who had hoped for clear skies, those who had hoped that on 11 February next year this issue would be resolved and the skies would be clear—whether clear with the colour of rainbows or not but clear nevertheless—will be let down. If the opposition continues to take this stance, then they will be denying the Australian people the right to vote. Instead, they will back themselves and politicians ahead of the people and the Australian public, and in particular the gay community, will know that they have been denied the opportunity by an opposition leader who might like to ride the high horse but that horse's name is 'Hypocrisy'.
I had a lovely day on Sunday. I met my two adult children and we drove to Mount Wilson. It is a beautiful place—a homestead and stunning gardens. There are B&Bs and a wedding venue, and there was a wedding taking place at the time. My son said to me, 'Mum, when I get married I'd like to get married here. But of course it has to be made legal first.' He was equally clear that this plebiscite on foot is not the way in which he wants his relationships legitimised. Today I join with my colleagues to say no to a publicly funded hate campaign, no to the world's most expensive and pointless opinion poll and no to a divisive plebiscite that will do nothing but make LGBTIQ young people and older people feel less secure while the legitimacy of their relationship is debated publicly. The member for Fairfax, who just spoke, must be living in La La Land if he thinks it is not going to get ugly.
To be frank, the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill is an absolute failure of leadership, the negative results of which will inevitably be borne by loving same-sex couples and their children. The conservatives in this place are all for Westminster democracy, just not on this issue. These are the Neanderthal attitudes of the right wing rump of the Liberal Party, the conservatives, who do not even recognise a modern democracy in a country that prides itself on equity and a fair go. Australians overwhelmingly back the right for LGBTIQ people to marry. Australian people know that the only real way to measure the worth of a relationship is by the love between two people. Labor has taken the time to consult the community. We have consulted the community at length, both at the federal level and in our own communities. It is clear what the message has been from the LGBTIQ community—they would prefer to wait until there is there is a free vote in this parliament and not be put through the potential horrors of a plebiscite.
Just last night I received an email from a constituent, one of many, which I think sums up the fears many LGBTIQ people have about this plebiscite. I would like to read this email into the Hansard, because it says everything.
The document read as follows—
Dear Ms Burney
I'm a 53 year old gay man, I've lived through the stigma of being a gay teenager when homosexuality was deemed illegal.
I can't convey to you how distressing, hurtful and how these laws retarded my own acceptance of my sexuality.
The angst was so great, I internalized my personal struggle until I was 33 and on coming out had a complete breakdown, caused by years of repressing my own feelings.
I've suffered discrimination in the work place over the decades & even walked away from jobs to remove myself from be bullied because is my sexual preference.
I now find myself in my 50's in a personal great space… Marriage equality would be one of the last few pieces to complete my life's puzzle.
Please, I can’t reiterate it enough don’t expose the LGBTIQ community to the proposed plebiscite, it well be very hurtful and re open many held wounds.
This proposal risks opening up the wounds of many older LGBTIQ people and, what is more, it risks subjecting young people who are questioning their sexuality or those whose parents are in same-sex relationships to a debate in which, there is no doubt, terrible things will be said and feelings will be hurt. Those hurt feelings will last a lifetime. Yet another constituent wrote to me recently to say this about her same-sex relationship and family:
I am proud of my family and support the parliament considering a change to the legislation in this area. However, I do not support a process which will encourage hate campaigns against the validity of my family and require us to yet again justify our existence.
What about that: being required to justify your existence, unlike any other group within the Australian community? Another person said:
When so many people in the queer community are crying out for help, when self harm and suicide are shockingly common, I'm hoping that you can make this right. Then Australia can move into the 21st century and start dealing with the other pressing issues we have at hand.
I thought that was a very insightful and extremely generous thing for that person to communicate to me.
There have been countless letters and emails from decent people who simply do not want to be the subject of a nasty public debate and its consequences. But, of course, telling of the fear and hate campaign is what this plebiscite will bring about. People in the LGBTI community know this and they have spoken at length with the Labor Party. The Labor Party, unlike those opposite, have listened to what the community has pleaded with us to do and we are doing what the community has advised us.
We cannot encourage hate campaigns when there is no justification, and there is no justification. The point has been made on countless occasions that a free vote could happen this week in this parliament without this expensive, hateful campaign.
When I was 10 years old this country held a referendum about my rights and the rights of all Aboriginal people to be counted as citizens in our census. We did that because constitutional change requires referenda. This change does not require a referendum. It requires bravery; it requires decency; and it requires honesty from those opposite. I am lucky that I was mostly protected from the No campaign back then, but there is no doubt that many were not. Awful things were said about Aboriginal people.
I have faith in the majority of Australians to conduct debates with respect, but we have already seen the evidence that that is not the case entirely. We have already seen in the state of Western Australia examples of hateful campaigns run by the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister has said that he believes we 'will be able to have a respectful discussion about this issue'. I do not think there is anyone in this House who is naive enough to believe that. Mr Speaker, may I seek permission to continue my contribution in a little while?
I am happy for you to keep speaking at this point.
Fringe groups are so often the loudest in our debates. While it is easy for experienced politicians to ignore them, that is not so for young people and for people who already feel the sting of discrimination. The reality is that opinion polls and individuals' rights need to be respected. The motivations of those on the other side for having this plebiscite are wrong. The motivation is about kicking the can down the road; the motivation is about silencing debate; the motivation is about stirring up in this community hate and discrimination, which we all see very clearly. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to continue my contribution at another time.
I thank the honourable member, and the honourable member will have the opportunity to continue her remarks at a later hour.
Earlier today, the question on a second reading amendment moved by the member for Fenner on the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2016 was put to the House and, as I understand it, called for the Ayes.
As the question on the amendment was called for the ‘Ayes’ and not contested, the amendment was validly passed and proceedings on the bill should have ceased at that point. I understand that questions on the second and third readings of the bill were then put. This should not have happened and those proceedings were not valid. The Votes and Proceedings record will be corrected to show the second reading amendment being agreed to and proceedings on the bill ceasing at that point.
House of Representatives Practice discusses the possibility of a second reading amendment being agreed to and states:
… if a reasoned amendment were carried…it could be argued that the amendment would not necessarily arrest the progress of the bill, as procedural actions could be taken to restore the bill to the notice paper and have the second reading moved on another occasion.
As the Member for Fenner’s amendment was in the form ‘whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading…’ I consider this is a reasonable course of action and I will permit that to occur.
An earlier part of that same section of Practice says:
As the House has never agreed to a reasoned amendment, it has no precedent of its own to follow in such circumstances.
There has never been a more chaotic government, there has never been a more chaotic parliament and there has never been a Leader of the House who has had to endure humiliation from his colleagues on such a regular basis.
Let us make clear what it is that was carried unanimously in this room today. Every member of the House a bit earlier resolved the following: that the House calls on the government to explain why it has failed to close tax loopholes and increase transparency in Australia. Well done to the member for Fenner for being the first member of parliament in the history of our Federation to have a second reading amendment carried.
Mr Speaker, on your own part, you have now made it into Practice, without any doubt. There is no way of having a new edition of that book without involving the new Smith ruling, which is a very reasonable way of approaching the situation that we are in. The situation that we are in is not the fault of the Speaker and it is not the fault of the clerks or the administration. It is entirely due to one of two reasons, and I do not know which: either the government had a moment of truth, realised how bad they were and felt compelled to vote with us, or they are as incompetent as they have looked every day that this parliament has met.
Let us not forget that we have only had our first 10 days of the House of Representatives sitting. In those 10 days, the government have lost control of the floor of the House of Representatives through some of them going home, and then today they lost control of the floor of the House of Representatives when they all stayed! We have also had a Treasurer who has introduced legislation containing a $107 million black hole, which was discovered by the shadow minister for finance, and we have had a Senate that ran out of legislation to debate. When they voted about how bad they were on tax avoidance and international multinational tax avoidance, who were the two ministers at the table? The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, who is in charge of tax, and the Minister for Justice, who is in charge of international crime! The two people who would know! There is a reason why the member for Warringah stood up today and said, 'It's good to be popular' and there is a reason why the stocks of this government have been tanking as quickly as they have.
Mr Speaker, in your ruling, you have put a way forward. It is sorely tempting to make the government remain in its humiliation—sorely tempting. But someone has to save this mob from themselves. So, if the Leader of the House chooses to follow the course of action that has been proposed by the Speaker, I will grant leave; I am not responsible for the member for Grayndler, but I think we will be able to find a sensible way of proceeding tonight. But be in no doubt: we have only been sitting 10 days and this is not a one-off mistake. This is an incompetent government that reckons it has a working majority. I make clear to the House that, if the first 10 days are any guide at all, then this is a government that is not counting up its days—this is a government in countdown.
Mr Speaker, I appreciate your statement to the House about the inadvertent error made earlier in the day. I also appreciate that the Manager of Opposition in the House is allowed to have his moment in the sun, gloating about an inadvertent error. I make the point that there are several owners of this error, and I am not going to criticise them individually, because it is wrong to criticise the people who work for us and the people who were sitting in the chair. I am not going to do that.
There were a series of events that led to this outcome, and it is a pity. I do appreciate the way that the Speaker has handled it from the chair. I also appreciate the Manager of Opposition Business's good grace in dealing with what is clearly human error—something that I would have done when I was the Manager of Opposition Business in the House, as I often did. The member for Grayndler lost 73 votes when he was in this parliament. But this is not the case that happened here.
Unfortunately, there was an inadvertent error. There is a mechanism to fix that, and that mechanism has been agreed by me and the Manager of Opposition Business in the House. I appreciate that. Since both sides are supporting this bill and, therefore, we are really arguing the toss over something that is not very important—we all support the bill—in order to be able to advance the matter further, I will seek leave to move that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2016 being restored immediately and proceedings being resumed with the second reading to be moved.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2016 being restored immediately, and proceedings being resumed with the second reading to be moved.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
This is a government which is pretty strong when it comes to taking on the weak. If they are taking on the pensioners, those with disabilities or carers in the community, then they are pretty tough. But when it comes to taking on some of the biggest companies in the world, this government goes weak at the knees. For years they have been arguing against Labor's attempts to shut down multinational tax loopholes. When we said we wanted to close debt deduction loopholes and the Leader of the Opposition put together a carefully crafted package on debt deduction loopholes, where were they? Are they standing on the side of the little guy? No, they were standing on the side of multinationals.
Labor's worldwide gearing ratio policy, our policy on hybrid mismatches and our policy on tax transparency have followed on from the hard work that Labor did in government. In government, under the leadership of Wayne Swan and David Bradbury, we brought forward a $4 billion package to shut down multinational tax loopholes. What did those opposite do? Did they vote for it? No, they voted against it. This is a party which is always voting against strong action on multinational tax avoidance. And when it came to the last sitting of last year, what was the last thing they did before the House adjourned? Again, it was to shut down tax transparency for big firms. They took two out of three big firms out of the tax transparency net in another dodgy deal with the Australian Greens. The Australian Greens and the Liberal Party voted against tax transparency.
But now, finally, for the first time in Australian history, we have an opportunity for the government to come forth and explain why they have chosen to take this path. They have had a second reading amendment unanimously supported by this House which gives them an opportunity to explain their failings in multinational tax avoidance and to finally come into this House and fess up and say that they will add billions of dollars to the budget bottom line by backing Labor's plan. Labor's plan has been supported by academics and by experts in the OECD. Labor's plan is drawn from work in the Parliamentary Budget Office. Labor's plan tackles one of the core issues in tax fairness in Australia, which is that one in three big companies pay no tax. How do we know that? We know it thanks to Labor's tax transparency laws—laws that this government voted against when they were in opposition and watered down while they were in government. They now have a chance to explain their failings on tax transparency and to come up with policies which are not drawn up in those lofty boardrooms of Australia but are worked up with an eye to main street Australia, because it is main street Australia that recognises that multinational profit shifting is wrong.
But when this mob opposite stand up at conferences—they go to their industry conferences; we might hear a little more of it tonight in the Great Hall—they are in favour of the tax loophole. This is the party of the bottom-of-the-harbour scheme. This is the party that is still in favour of tax loopholes—tax loopholes that are not available to little businesses, tax loopholes that are not available to regular mums and dads, tax loopholes that are only available to the biggest companies in the world.
But now they have a chance to explain themselves. Now they have a chance to do that backflip which they so neatly performed on the second reading amendment. It was unexpected, but it was welcomed by those of us on this side of the House. I am sure it was welcomed by the Australian people, who want the coalition to finally stop playing a protection racket for some of the biggest companies in the world and start speaking out in favour of tax transparency and of tax fairness and saying that there is something wrong when one in four of the companies on the public register and one in three on the private register pay no tax. We have a tax commissioner who says our tax system is 'under fire from the actions of multinationals and large companies seeking to abuse it'. If the tax system is under fire, it needs a government that will stand on the side of the little guy. They have that chance, and we will welcome the explanation that comes in this second reading amendment.
Given that consideration in detail is an opportunity to ask ministers at the table a question, I would like to ask a question of the minister responsible, who is at the table and has moved the legislation. In relation to page 3 of the bill, about interaction between the 2015 agreement and the 1972 agreement, how much of the 1972 agreement is made null and void by the 2015 agreement, as evidenced by the bill he has just moved in the House?
The member for McMahon will resume his seat immediately. The question is that the bill be agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
As I was saying earlier, a free vote on marriage equality could be held in this House this week. It will make a world of difference to LGBTIQ people who would like to get married and will give young people the ability to imagine a world in which they can do so. We already know that this debate will have a negative effect on gay and lesbian young people—we have heard their stories.
We have a very useful case study in Ireland. Just a few days ago research was published by the University of Queensland showing that the Irish referendum and the increase in homophobic rhetoric had a detrimental effect on young people. Some were forced out of their schools and churches, and communities were unnecessarily divided. In all those joyous images of the successful campaign in Ireland it is easy to forget the hurt that was caused. In fact, we know that the national suicide hotline right here in Australia is already preparing for an increase in calls, having added an entirely new category of calls to its computer system.
LGBTIQ groups have been clear. They have been clear and we have listened to them, unlike the conservatives. A federal election at some point, a plebiscite and a referendum on recognition of First Peoples is the way that people are talking. I am seriously concerned that this government's planned plebiscite will sap the political will for the referendum campaign and see this historic opportunity missed. Other speakers, including the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have made that point. Referenda are difficult and I am concerned that this plebiscite, with an aggressive campaign, will see people disengage from our democratic process, putting at risk our chance to change the Constitution to recognise First Peoples. Changing the Marriage Act does not need a public vote. The Marriage Act was changed by the Howard government by an act of parliament, and that should be the case here as well.
We have to be honest about a few things in this debate. We have to be honest that we have been here before. We have to be honest that on the eve of every single major debate about the rights of every minority group we see very ugly campaigns mounted, and we are seeing this one gather strength. In New South Wales I was the Minister for Family and Community Services. I helped lead Labor's efforts to see Clover Moore's bill to legalise same-sex adoption passed—we did it by about three votes. Much like this debate, it was hard-fought and difficult. Many people said some very hurtful things. But for all the doomsday predictions of those opposed to the legislation, and some of the abhorrent accusations made six years on, I can report to the House that this legislation has actually given homes to many children in foster care—loving homes, supportive homes of people in gay relationships. Parents continue to love their children all the same, but those in same-sex relationships got the recognition they deserved and the support they needed. In fact, for people in heterosexual relationships this legislation did nothing, but it meant the world to some in the LGBTI community.
I want to reiterate a point that has already been made. I can see this campaign clearly. I can see those opposed to equal marriage link this to be safe schools programs, and in some communities it will become very ugly. But I join with my Labor Party colleagues in standing strong with the LGBTI community. I stand strong in looking at what is happening internationally. I stand strong with the majority of Australian people who believe this legislation should happen. I stand strong with many people who have been in gay relationships for their entire lives—30, 40, 50 or 60 years—and I pay respect to those relationships and recognise that they are as legitimate as any other relationship in this country. That legitimisation, the last part of the jigsaw puzzle that needs to be put in place for this wonderful community, is the capacity to be able to marry and demonstrate their love, just like the rest of the Australian community.
How can we as a nation stand tall when we still have this sort of discrimination? How can we as a nation stand tall when we are seeing a government simply putting off this inevitable thing in Australia where there is equal marriage for all—where a government that says they want a plebiscite and yet does not bind their members to the outcome of that plebiscite? We know within this government that there will be those who will run part of the 'no' campaign. But let's get marriage equality into legislation. If those opposite cannot think of something better to spend $200 million on, I suggest they go for a walk through their electorates.
I implore the House, do not support this unnecessary plebiscite and write the fringe-dwelling bigots a cheque for millions and millions of dollars. I note yesterday the wonderful speech given by the member for Longman and the way in which she expressed her love for her son. And I express the love for my son, as well. We all do on this side of the House. Our deepest thanks go to the LGBTI community for the time, patience and goodwill they have shown this party in terms of explaining to us what they want. They have clearly said they do not want a plebiscite. If it means waiting another few years, that is what they want to do. They want their relationships respected and they want the same rights as everyone else in the Australian community when it comes to equal marriage.
Today marks 14 years since the tragic Bali bombings that took place in Kuta killing 202 people, among them 88 Australians. Through it was not an attack experienced on our soil, it was an attack on Australia, and it left us all feeling less safe and less secure.
There are many ways to remember the tragedy of 'bom Bali', just as there are many ways that we as a community respond to the scourge of terrorism: perhaps fear, perhaps insecurity, perhaps indiscriminate hatred or, alternatively, with defiance and a resolute determination not to give in to the terrorist's goals of dividing us and setting us against each other. Rather than give oxygen to the evil that spawned this horrendous act of violence, I have come to believe, through my experiences, that the most appropriate and effective response is to remember and acknowledge the victims and survivors of terrorism as we all work towards a world where terrorism is no longer. I say this as someone who has come to know many of the Bali bombing survivors and their families through my research work. In doing this work, I have had the honour of meeting and working with Mr Phil Britten. I must acknowledge today that I also had the honour of meeting Phil's mother and brother, who are here today.
Phil grew up in my electorate of Cowan, and he went to school locally at Greenwood High. At the age of 22, he was a promising AFL player and captain of the Kingsley Football Club, which lost seven of its 13 members in Kuta that night.
Phil's story of survival after the bombing is not just an inspiration but a testimony to the triumph of the human spirit. I asked Phil what he would like me to say today and he responded with this quote:
The Bali bombings were a tragedy but surviving them was a gift, something I don't ever take for granted. It's that gratitude that fundamentally drives me to help others believe in themselves, make the most of their opportunities and the unique gifts they have been given.
Today, Phil is one of Australia's leading and most sought after speakers on entrepreneurship and innovation. He has gone from being a 60 per cent burns survivor on a disability pension to a self-made millionaire. Through his own life's journey, Phil reminds us that the real triumph over terrorism is our ability to never let terrorism define us. Terrorism may kill and it may maim, but we can never let it destroy us. And we can never forget those we loved and lost.
I met Phil and his wife, Rebecca, in 2011 and was introduced to the Bali Peace Park Association. I became the Western Australia ambassador for the Bali Peace Park Association, whose mission is to establish a memorial peace park on the side of the Sari Club in Kuta.
Fourteen years on from the Bali bombings, the Sari Club site stands abandoned. For many years it was neglected, overgrown with weeds and bordered by a damaged fence. To the unaware, the site is anonymous, and its only relevance is as Kuta's singular carpark amid a sea of concrete and glass, constant traffic, loud music and raucous tourists. Leading up to the anniversary, the site becomes a makeshift memorial, covered in photos of those wholes lives were tragically lost and tragically cut short.
Since its inception in 2008, the Bali Peace Park Association's mission has been to establish a memorial peace park on that site. They have gained bipartisan support for the project and raised some of the funds needed to acquire the land to create that memorial garden. The Bali Peace Park Association has remained committed to pursuing its vision of the peace park against some very challenging odds. With the support of the local community in Bali, including the governor and senator, they have managed to ensure that the site of the bombings has not been developed, despite pressure from the site's landowner. They are also working with a Bali based charity.
Today, we remember those who died in Bali that night. Tonight, in Bali, 88 candles will be lit— (Time expired)
I rise today to dedicate one of my first speeches in this parliament to the importance of the local organisations, clubs, associations and groups in the electorate of Brisbane, and to pledge my commitment and support to their tireless efforts in our Brisbane community.
While there are many challenges, issues and concerns in the community, one of the most inspiring things I have discovered so far about being a member of parliament is that you get to see the great work being done by so many local community groups, local schools, clubs, organisations and volunteers. It truly does give me great faith in our future. The Brisbane Broncos is one of the biggest local clubs in the Brisbane electorate. During the federal election, the Turnbull government and I committed $2 million to the club and its centre of excellence in Red Hill. I want to place on the record my views on why this funding is so important.
The Brisbane Broncos Leagues Club has more than 40,000 members, and it is an important part of the Red Hill community, providing exceptional community facilities, and employment and training opportunities. Its centre of excellence and the programs it supports help people from all around Queensland, including a particular emphasis on outreach to indigenous and remote communities.
The funding will be provided to ensure better integration of the Broncos's facilities into the local community, better community access and enhanced amenities in the area for local residents. More specifically, the funding will kick-start a number of very important projects in the Broncos precinct, including rehabilitation of the nearby Ithaca creek, tree planting, better surfacing and lighting of streets, more bike paths and footpaths, including connectivity with other local tracks, improved landscaping and public car parks. Also included in the project funding is the construction of a fitness park and a spectator stand.
The funding will help to create a facility that will be truly accessibly to locals in Red Hill, Paddington, Ashgrove, surrounding suburbs and, indeed, greater Brisbane. Building community access to the Broncos' world-class facilities while protecting and improving our local environment is good news for all of Brisbane.
The Turnbull coalition are dedicated to building stronger communities across Australia. When we announced our commitment during the campaign, in the background behind us, behind the press pack, was a dad and his son from the local community, just kicking around a footy on world-class facilities. That is precisely what this is all about. This is an ideal example of the government working collaboratively with community partners to create better outcomes for everyday people right across Brisbane. By investing in projects such as this, the government can improve lifestyles, improve recreation and fitness outcomes, build stronger communities, improve local property prices and deliver local jobs and local growth.
This government has a long history of supporting local clubs and a proud history of supporting the Broncos in particular. The Brisbane Broncos are themselves practising this ethos of investing in our community. Just last week at the NRL Community Awards, the club was awarded the NRL Club Community Program of the Year for their Beyond The Broncos program. The Beyond The Broncos program aims to improve school attendance rates and year 12 attainment rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in 10 high schools across the greater Brisbane region. A dedicated team of Broncos' Indigenous support staff provide one-on-one mentoring support, encouragement and motivation for students to achieve maximum school attendance, effort and behaviour and, ultimately, to complete year 12.
This year, the program supports around 300 students in years 10 to 12. It is programs just like this that strengthen our community. I would like to congratulate the club chairman, Dennis Watt; the CEO, Paul White; all of the players; and the staff for their tireless efforts and dedication to the Brisbane community. I congratulate the Broncos on their performance this season and on the class and the guts they showed during the finals, especially in their final match—that nail-biting semifinal match against the Cowboys. I look forward to continuing to work hard with them in the future, including making these projects a reality. Finally, I look forward to working equally hard for so many other great community organisations, sporting clubs, schools, groups and volunteers right across Brisbane.
This is a speech about institutional responses to child sexual abuse—in particular, the response of the school that I attended—and a statement in support of the boys who were affected.
First, I have some background. When I was my first elected to parliament, I visited the aged-care home for the Christian Brothers in Waverly. I was keen to see a man whom I had not seen in decades; his name was Brother Bell. He had been an inspiring teacher in my formative years at Edmund Rice College in Wollongong. I asked for, and he gave me, a Bible so that I could be sworn in on it on my first day in parliament. I have the Bible here. It is a modest book—as modest and effective as the man who gave it to me. If my faith in the church has faltered in the 35 years since he taught me, my faith in this man has not. He lived a life of selfless service. Sadly, some of his brethren were not made of the same stuff.
In my tumultuous first term as an MP, I was proud to be a member of a government—the Gillard government—which established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. When we look at the work that the royal commission has done—the crimes and cover-ups that it has uncovered—it seems hard to believe today that its establishment could have been controversial. It was. Many powerful people resisted it. I believe the establishment of the royal commission is one of Julia Gillard's enduring legacies. For too long, the victims of child sexual abuse were ignored and, in many institutions, the perpetrators were protected.
The impact it had on boys at my school cannot be underestimated, nor can the impact of denial and cover-ups that accompanied the original crimes and allowed them to be repeated in place after place and with victim after victim. Two weeks ago, I visited my old school. This time it was to see the principal—a good man running a good school. I wanted to assure him that this statement did not reflect upon the management and the boys who are now attending that school. When I look back at my years at Edmund Rice College in the late 1970s and early 1980s, they were mostly happy. I worked hard and did well. There was a darker side, though. For many years, the school had seemed to be a dumping ground for sex offenders. We now know that there were Brothers who were moved from other schools in Sydney after complaints and allegations of child sexual abuse.
One example was Brother Chris Roberts. He attended St Patrick's College Sutherland from 1975 to 1977. After complaints there, he was moved to St Edmund's College in Canberra, where he taught from the late 1970s to early 1980s. Again, there were more incidents and more complaints. He was moved from Canberra to Wollongong. Remarkably, earlier this year he was charged with 21 sexual offences over that long period. On 15 June this year, Brother Roberts pleaded guilty to 11 of the 21 charges.
When Roberts was convicted, I broke a long silence on the matter. I spoke of my time at school when the form master, the principal and even the parish priest were engaged in the crime of paedophilia. Of course, as young boys we did not have a name for their behaviours. We thought they were a bit creepy. We would go to great lengths to avoid being caught alone with them. Even as kids we could see there was a huge gap between what they taught us and the way they behaved; its name was hypocrisy. I have been asked why I did not speak out at the time. It is a good question. I am pleased that the pathways that are available for kids today are so much clearer. It was not the case back then, particularly when every normal link in the chain for complaining was filled by people who were themselves involved in the crimes.
I also recall the saddest conversation that I ever had with my father, when he apologised to me for what he thought was a great failing: sending us to a school where these men preyed upon his children and others' children. I attempted to comfort him, but he would not have it. He confessed that, even if we had told him, he would not have believed us. It was, for him, so outside his experience and the way he had lived his life that he would not have believed that this was possible.
In February this year, Cardinal George Pell was examined by the royal commission. He was questioned on how much he knew about the paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale and sexual assaults in Victoria. The claim that he knew nothing of the priest's many crimes beggar belief, but, tragically, it was not this that caused the greatest alarm. It was his admission that this sad story of Ridsdale's victims 'wasn't of much interest to me'.
My purpose today is to say to those men who felt ignored, who were disbelieved and who felt the burning fury of denial: I know it happened. The shame is not yours. We cannot change the past. We can only hope to bring justice to the victims, the perpetrators and those who covered it up, and to ensure that it does not happen again.
A myth often told about Australia is that our wealth and success was built on the sheep's back. But we all know that while we may literally be the lucky country our fortune has derived not from luck but from hard work and innovation. There are some who have for far too long felt it necessary to diminish the success we have achieved as a nation as being nothing more than dumb luck. From our very first days our community's wealth and very survival was built on inventiveness. In many ways, we had no other choice. If necessity is the mother of all invention, then our continent over and over again has given us plenty of incentive to be inventive. Australians can take credit for the invention of penicillin, the black box flight recorder, spray-on skin and the pacemaker. In fact, one of my constituents, Dr David Green, is one of the pioneers of the pacemaker and lives in Mackellar.
Many people do not realise that Google Maps was developed by two Australians, that polymer bank notes were first invented here or that Australians invented the cochlear implant, the electric drill, the winged keel, wi-fi, ultrasound, plastic lenses, inflatable escape slides, cervical cancer vaccines, permaculture and, most importantly, RaceCam. Each of these inventions is significant. Together they represent a body of work that puts us amongst the top tier of nations when it comes to innovation. They have each contributed to making Australia one of the wealthiest and privileged countries in the world. The questions we face today are: if we are to continue to be a modern and dynamic nation with high-income jobs and generous social services, how can we accelerate, leverage and encourage scientific endeavour? How can we build upon our history and further develop our modern and dynamic character?
I believe that the role of prizes in the encouragement and development of scientific endeavour has been underestimated in Australia. In the past, prizes were used to encourage and focus intellectual effort on specific problems. Initially the scientist would present his discovery to a wealthy benefactor, who would return the gesture with a gift of their own. The most famous of these was Galileo's gift of the discovery of the moons of Jupiter to Medici. Medici noted—sardonically—that it was a gift 'out of this world'.
Globally, prizes for innovation of over $100,000 have tripled in the last decade, to $375 million. Since 2000 there have been 60 new prizes worth over $250 million. The most famous contemporary example of a prize being used to accelerate scientific investigation is the X project, based in California. The project's mission is 'to bring radical breakthrough for the benefit of humanity.' Its most noteworthy prize has been the Ansari X Prize for the first group that could design a vehicle that could enter space twice within 10 days. This prize resulted in over $100 million being invested in the development of such vehicles, the most famous of which has become Virgin Galactic, which has spawned a nascent space tourism industry.
Franklin Roosevelt, at the nadir of the Great Depression, expressed his governing philosophy as simply 'bold, persistent experimentation'. This government is promoting bold and persistent experimentation in public policy. The latest example is the $96 million Try, Test and Learn Fund announced by Minister Porter. This program will do the most radical of things: it will seek to measure the effectiveness of a social policy initiative. If an initiative is not working then we will stop doing it. But, more importantly, when a measure does work, we can do more of it.
But, as we can see from overseas, most prizes are not driven by government. In my own electorate of Mackellar, our most famous constituent, Dick Smith, is promoting a contest to encourage the development of better electric planes with longer ranges. Dick has proposed a race from London to Darwin for electric planes to replicate the race Billy Hughes created to help bring about the commercial aviation industry in Australia. This contest can promote the development of longer-range electric planes and highlight their commercial applications. Dick is, as usual, willing to put his money where his mouth is and contribute to the prizes to get the contest off the ground. (Time expired)
I want to speak tonight on the way forward for marriage equality after this week's decision by the Labor Party not to support the proposed plebiscite put forward by the Abbott-Turnbull government. I want to start by making one thing very clear: the proposed plebiscite is not about the LGBTI community. It never was. I have received hundreds of emails from LGBTI Australians this year. Not one has supported it.
LGBTI Australians were not invited to the farcical six-hour coalition party room meeting at the tail end of the Abbott prime ministership that birthed this strange beast. The plebiscite has only ever been about the coalition party room. It stands as a measure of the lengths to which the coalition is willing to go to avoid addressing the issue head on. The coalition is willing to trash conservative principles, waste $200 million and subject the LGBTI community to a humiliating, discriminatory national vote on their status as equal citizens—all because they are too cowardly to do their jobs, too cowardly to look people in the eye and vote according to their principles in the parliament.
We do not need an unprecedented, expensive, divisive and unnecessary plebiscite to make marriage equality happen; we need an act of parliament. Indeed, we have amended the Marriage Act 20 times before without the assistance of a plebiscite. In 2004, when John Howard amended the act, he told this place:
We've decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that .. the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands of the parliament of the nation.
… it is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country.
That is us. This is the classical conservative position on the issue. The Abbott-Turnbull plebiscite is a radical departure from the principles of representative democracy that we all came to this parliament to serve.
What makes this issue unique amongst the serious issues considered by the parliament since federation that we did not need a plebiscite on? As former High Court judge Michael Kirby put it succinctly:
We didn't do this for the Aboriginal people when we moved to give equality in law to them ... we didn't do it in advances on women's equality, we didn't do it most recently on disability equality. Why are we now picking out the LGBT, the gay community? It's simply an instance of hate and dislike, hostility to a small minority in our population.
I agree with the courageous position that Senator Dean Smith has outlined, saying that we should hold sacrosanct the parliament as the foremost institution in exercising the democratic functions of this nation.
In a gripping episode of Q&A a few weeks ago Madga Szubanksi captured the central issue in this debate when she asked another coalition senator, Senator Fiona Nash, the simple question at the heart of this issue: 'Do you think I'm equal to you?' Well, I have the same question for the government. Does the government think LGBTI couples should have equal rights? They should not need to find a friend. They came to this parliament on a platform and they can vote on that platform. Labor does believe that LGBTI Australians are equal. The Australian people believe that LGBTI Australians are equal, and they want the law to reflect this now, not after a divisive, expensive, unnecessary plebiscite.
People who care about marriage equality care about equal treatment. Using a discriminatory mechanism to deliver equality defeats the point. The Prime Minister used to understand this. He argued for a free vote in this parliament before he became the leader. Unfortunately, he seems to have had a road to Damascus conversion. Unfortunately, today he is a born again Christiansen. The Prime Minister and Attorney-General have been running a line in the media that somehow Labor is to blame for the current situation and for the lack of ability of the parliament to deal with this issue. I say to the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, do not lecture us about how to deliver marriage equality. Do not lecture the LGBTI community about how to deliver social change in this nation. They have learnt more about it than you will ever know. Save the talk for the recalcitrants in the coalition party room. Ask them why they do not believe LGBTI Australians are equal. Ask them why they do not have the guts to tell them that to their face in this parliament.
Prime Minister, show some leadership. Come back into this place and let parliamentarians do the job that we were elected to do. Just get on with it. Together we can resolve this issue. There is nothing special about it. My constituents want this dealt with. We can deal with it very promptly. All it takes is some leadership in the top office of this land.
Mr Speaker, during my election campaign I was proud to be able to join the Prime Minister to announce that the Turnbull coalition government would commit $40 million dollars towards fixing the Oaklands rail crossing in my electorate of Boothby. I worked hard to secure this announcement and I am grateful to my state colleague, Corey Wingard MP, the member for Mitchell, and my federal colleague, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, for their assistance. We proudly stand as the only government to have ever committed funding to this project.
The Oaklands rail crossing has been an issue for my residents for over forty years. Without fail, the crossing subjects road users to traffic chaos and unacceptable delays every day. 41,000 vehicles pass through the crossing daily and the boom gates can be closed for up to a total of two hours. This causes not one, but two busy road corridors to effectively be shut down, particularly during peak hour.
The Oaklands crossing issue is the result of state Labor government failure and inaction over 40 years. In 1971 the then Dunstan Labor government announced plans to build a rail overpass and the old Highways Department started buying up land for the project. Five years later that same government told the Marion Council that the crossing was not justified. Decades on, it is obvious how wrong they were.
In 2008 the Rann Labor government undertook a $6.8 million upgrade of the Oaklands train station. A few years later they spent a further $2 million on a scoping study, which told them that the new station would have to be demolished in order to fix the crossing. It is no surprise the incompetent Weatherill state Labor government has fought hard to keep that report under wraps.
The Oaklands rail crossing issue is symptomatic of the South Australian Labor government's time in office—14 long years of inaction, incompetence and waste. This is why I prioritised fixing the intersection and campaigned hard for the federal government to kickstart this vital infrastructure project with a significant $40 million funding commitment towards fixing the crossing. We were clear at the time that the project would require contributions from local and state government as well.
Fixing Oaklands crossing will have a significant impact on the lives of residents in Boothby. I have residents who cannot access their driveways during peak hour traffic simply because they live close to the intersection. I have small businesses who say that the lack of access to their premises is hurting them and their customers. Every day is a battle for parents trying to get to work or taking their children to nearby schools, such as Christ the King School, Warradale Primary School and Paringa Park Primary.
Road safety is another reason this crossing must be fixed. The National Rail Safety Regulator lists Oaklands crossing as Adelaide's fifth most dangerous. From 2010 to 2015 there were over 100 collisions at Oaklands crossing, including two that involved pedestrians.
Fixing the crossing will also make it easier to reach Adelaide's biggest suburban shopping centre, Westfield Marion, which attracts an average of 40,000 visitors per day. It will make it easier for elite athletes, swimmers of all abilities and mums, dads and kids to reach the SA Aquatic and Leisure Centre, which hosted our Olympic trials earlier this year. The SA Aquatic and Leisure Centre, managed by Mr Adam Luscombe, who recently hosted me on a tour of this amazing community facility, attracts up to 4,000 patrons a day and around 1.1 million patrons a year. Both Westfield Marion and the SA Aquatic and Leisure Centre are located less than 500 metres from the Oaklands rail crossing.
The time has come for this issue to be fixed. In order to get this project underway there will need to be a co-contribution from other levels of government. The state government, in particular, needs to put a properly costed proposal on the table.
The public expect their representatives to work together to solve problems such as this. If the state government believe they have a way forward, I encourage them to fully disclose all the plans and costings they have and to provide evidence of the funds they intend to contribute to this critical project. The coalition government's contribution to the rail line and road separation is in keeping with our focus on making our cities more accessible and more productive and helping families and businesses. I call upon the state government to approach the Oaklands crossing issue with the same level of community concern, diligence and good faith that we have shown since making our $40 million commitment earlier this year.
House adjourned at 20:00
I call on the Turnbull government to urgently commit to a full Medicare MRI licence at the Tweed Hospital. Recently, the government rejected an application by Queensland Diagnostic Imaging for the full MRI licence for the Tweed Hospital. This is simply unfair and unjust. The fact is that the Minister for Health could make a decision today and grant the licence, and my community is calling for this. I have previously written to the health minister requesting that the government fully commit to this so that locals can get access to this important health service. Our community on the New South Wales North Coast fully supports this campaign, because we know how important the full Medicare MRI licence is and how much it is vitally needed at the Tweed Hospital. This service would greatly assist locals living in both the Tweed and Byron shires.
Currently the MRI at the Tweed Hospital only has a partial licence. Whilst it offers a full range of services to patients, only specified items are bulk-billed, as they do not have the full Medicare licence. The reality for patients is they either have to pay to get the MRI or alternatively have to travel significant distances to access a rebateable MRI. This situation means that locals are significantly disadvantaged. This is fundamentally unfair, because we know that MRIs can save lives. They are important tools in diagnosis and ongoing treatment. If a patient needs an MRI at Tweed Hospital and it is not on the rebateable list, either they need to pay the gap, which can often be hundreds of dollars, or they have go to Robina or Lismore, both of which have waiting lists weeks long, and it can be difficult for locals to get there due to the lack of public transport.
I have also been advised that this situation puts my community members in an unsafe and often poor quality health situation, where patients who cannot afford an MRI scan are sometimes having to take up the option of undertaking radiation exposure on CT scans, or sometimes they just do not get the MRI. This is simply wrong. It is unfair that the community does not have affordable and convenient access to MRIs. This is severely affecting their health outcomes.
The Tweed-Byron area has one of the fastest growing populations in the country, and we also have a large proportion of seniors, who often have complex healthcare needs. All of this makes access to an affordable MRI even more vitally important. Quite frankly, it is wrong for the Tweed Hospital to miss out, considering the size and growth of our region's population, particularly our elderly population. Due to the massive community concern about this issue, I will be launching a petition calling on the government to grant the full MRI licence. We are not asking for anything extraordinary or extravagant; we just want our fair share—basic medical services for our people in our region.
I will continue to fight on behalf of my community for a full Medicare MRI licence at the Tweed Hospital so that locals can rightfully access the effective health services that they deserve. My community is 100 per cent behind this campaign. They desperately need to have access to this important health service, and quite frankly it is unfair that the government has not granted it so far.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, last Friday night, the Orange community came together in Cook Park to unite in hope and raise funds to support families with blood cancer at the Leukaemia Foundation's Light the Night. Now in its ninth year, Light the Night aims to raise $2 million to fund blood cancer research and support for families affected by the disease and related blood disorders. Light the Night is the annual fundraising walk, and I was honoured to participate as MC for this year's event. It was a great event, with the community coming together as we walked around the historic Cook Park in Orange, carrying one of three coloured lanterns: gold to remember a loved one, white for their own blood cancer journey, or blue to support others.
The event was hosted by Olivia West, with support from dedicated committee members including Emily Swift, Susannah Perkins, Amorette Zelinski, Anna Derham and Ed Swift. It was a night for families to come together and share stories and support. The event was sponsored by local business including Printhie Wines; Coates Hire, Orange; Southern Cross Austereo; and MacHire, Orange. Entertainment was provided by Stepping Out Dance Factory—and the young men and women did a fantastic job; Ben McGarrity, a great entertainer; and rising musical star, Olivia Merrington. The Rapid Relief Team provided refreshments, with 100 per cent of their profit going to the Leukaemia Foundation. With numbers still being tallied up, it looks like the event raised nearly $10,000. This is a great outcome for a regional event and a testament to the generosity of our local community.
The Leukaemia Foundation was formed in 1975. It is Australia's peak body for blood cancer, funding research and providing free services to support people with leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and related blood disorders, and their families. It provides services, at no charge, to patients and families right across the country in metropolitan areas but also, significantly, in regional areas. Every two hours someone in Australia will lose their life to blood cancer. Another 35 Australians are diagnosed every single day. Events such as Light the Night aim to bring communities together and provide hope. Every $100 raised can cover the cost of giving one family immediate emotional support, and also one hour of blood cancer research.
Last Friday night was a tremendous community event in Orange. It was a demonstration from our community that if you are suffering from blood cancer, or if you are caring for someone who is, then you do not have to walk alone.
Recently we had terrible storms in South Australia, with some 80,000 lightning strikes and severe blackouts. I was in my house in the Barossa Valley on that night and it was like being thrown back in time, back to candles and the combustion heater. It was very serious weather outside. My thoughts, and those of my South Australian colleagues, go to those who experienced serious incidents during this storm, who lost livestock and pets, and who had property damage. We were very lucky that there was limited damage to people.
I am very grateful to the volunteers and emergency services personnel, particularly the utility workers of SA Power Networks and ElectraNet, who were out there in the middle of the storm, putting back together—in record time and with record efficiency—an electricity network that had gone down. We have to think about the utility workers and we have to think about the State Emergency Service and the Country Fire Service, including the brigade that I am a member of, the Dalkeith brigade. I helped them do some sandbags a couple of days after the storms, while we were waiting for the floods. I have to thank 7 RAR, particularly Bravo Company, and the 1st Combat Service Support Division of the 1st Brigade of the Army, as well as RAAF personnel, A Squadron, No. 3 Security Forces Squadron, at the headquarters. I also thank police officers and ambulance officers, and all those who were out there doing their bit, in a very stoic way, to support the South Australian community in, what was an extreme weather event.
If I have one observation to make, it is that when we have extreme weather events that cause severe disruption to the community then politicians of all shapes and sizes should resist the temptation to jump to conclusions; to engage in partisan debate; and to run out to a Canberra news studio, as some politicians do, to pronounce the cause of these extreme weather events. I think that was entirely regrettable that we were having a debate about these things while the state was, in essence, in a crisis that needed to be managed.
Thank you to all the volunteers and thank you to all those who performed so stoically in the face of what were extreme weather events. And it is a lesson learned for some politicians too.
I rise to highlight an issue of urgent concern in my electorate, which covers the two largest sugar-growing districts in the nation. All sugar mills in the Burdekin are owned by the Singaporean milling company Wilmar. In 2014, that company announced it would take over the role of sugar marketing from QSL for the 2017 season and beyond. The lack of transparency this move created was one of great concern to farmers, and the Queensland parliament legislated in December last year to ensure those farmers would retain choice in marketing of their product.
Other milling companies have complied with the sugar-marketing laws and have worked with farmers to achieve the best outcome for the industry as a whole. Wilmar, however, have sought to circumvent the law and exploit their monopoly position. While such behaviour may still comply with the letter of the law, it is most certainly not within the spirit of the law. Wilmar's failure to negotiate a deal with QSL means farmers cannot choose QSL for marketing and are therefore being railroaded into accepting whatever deal Wilmar puts in front of them. The supply agreements they are asking farmers to sign are extraordinarily long, complicated, detrimental and, I have to say, very heavy-handed and unwieldy for farmers. Wilmar's unconscionable conduct in this matter is extremely anticompetitive and precisely the kind of conduct that prompted the establishment of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. I have written to the ACCC today requesting an urgent investigation into Wilmar's anticompetitive behaviour as the industry in the Burdekin, in particular, is now at crisis point.
Sugarcane farmers produce a perishable crop that is dependent on the miller for the processing of the cane and, given that each district can support only one sugar mill, there is no competition for milling. The owner of the mill effectively has a monopoly and is able to negotiate supply contracts with cane farmers from an extreme position of power. To date, this has caused many issues, and almost all power and independence in terms of farm management that farmers once had has been eroded. Of the more than 300 farmers that have been represented by grower groups within the Burdekin region, only a dozen or so farmers have signed supply agreements for the next season, for which farmers are already planting.
Planting without a contract is highly risky. Farmers who do so are at the mercy of the mill and must accept whatever deal is placed in front of them. The only other alternative is to let the crop rot in the field. For two years, farmers have attempted to negotiate reasonable outcomes for themselves and for the long-term viability of the industry, but Wilmar's tactics have been to delay wherever possible, because they know that, as the deadline looms, their negotiating power grows. With sugar prices over $600 a tonne—the best prices that farmers have seen in decades—it is tempting for them to sign whatever deal they can to lock in those prices, but the fact that so few have signed those unfair and anticompetitive contracts is an indictment of Wilmar and a grave situation for the industry in North Queensland. (Time expired)
I recently had the great opportunity and privilege to be invited to visit the Victor Harbor Men's Shed. Men's sheds are wonderful community organisations that provide men of all ages the chance to work together, to talk together and to share in the bonds of support and mateship. In my electorate of Mayo, we are lucky to have many vibrant and successful men's sheds, including Mount Barker, Aldgate, Mount Pleasant, Strathalbyn, and Yankalilla and Districts. Kingscote, on Kangaroo Island, will soon have its own men's shed.
In the age of the quick, digital friendship status on Facebook, one great irony often overlooked is that developing real friendships and meaningful connections between people takes time and requires shared effort. I think for many this is becoming harder to do. Men's sheds offer a face-to-face venue and an opportunity for mateship and shared projects. It is a place where knowledge can be shared, stories can be shared and valuable skills can be transferred.
Indeed, at the Victor Harbor Men's Shed I heard of stories about younger men who were getting their first foot in the door with learning a trade, and about the more experienced men in the shed who had skills to share from trades and businesses, and about many men who had retired. Men's sheds also do great work in promoting mental health and wellbeing. It is a sad reality that men over 65 have the highest incidence of suicide in our community, and this statistic tragically only gets worse as men get older, especially if they have lost a partner or live alone. Men's sheds play a brilliant and highly successful role in keeping these men connected to their wider community, but especially with other men who can understand some of the challenges they may be facing.
Victor Harbor Men's Shed is currently in the process of relocating to bigger premises and are seeking support with their plans of expansion. The new premises will allow the shed, with many more tools and more equipment, to operate three days a week rather than just one day a week, which is what is happening at the moment. It will provide facilities that other community groups can use, such as TAFE and women's groups. I will be liaising with government to seek support for their relocation and expansion plans. I also encourage anyone out there who might be listening, or who might be reading this, to get in touch with me if they wish to support this worthy endeavour.
I want to end by sending my heartfelt thanks to the men's shed at Victor Harbor for inviting me to sit down with them and to meet with them and for letting me touch all of their power tools, and to all of the men's sheds across Mayo for all of the work that you do in our community. I look forward to working with and supporting you and men's sheds over the coming years.
This morning I would like to reflect on a number of important community organisations in my electorate that are doing great work in my area. Recently, I attended the 37th annual Lugarno Lions Spring Festival at Gannons Park, down in Peakhurst. As always, there were lots of festivities and rides. The classic cars were there again this year, and there were a wide variety of food stalls and so on. Many thousands of people attended, as they do every year. Even though, unfortunately, the weather was not the best this year, thousands of people still turned out, which was great to see. I would like to congratulate the Lions on their efforts again this year—Greg English, the president; John Slack, the secretary; and Ivan McKay, who played a huge role in organising the event this year, as he does every year. It was good to be able to assist Ivan with one or two activities on the day. Thank you, again, to the Lugarno Lions, for their great efforts in the Spring Festival. Of course, all the funds raised go to charity, as they do every year. Since 1974, the Lugarno Lions have raised over $2 million for charity, so thank you to the Lions.
I also recently attended the Buddha's Light International Association temple at Kogarah. About five per cent of people in my electorate are of the Buddhist faith, and I always enjoy visiting the BLIA and catching up with them on issues. It was good to see Francis Wong, the president; Reverend Yao; and all of the local attendees of the temple on the day. The BLIA does a lot of great work in our broader community, raising funds for different activities. After the Blue Mountains bushfires a number of years ago, they raised tens of thousands of dollars in support. They also have activities such as sending people into nursing homes to provide companionship and entertainment through their singing groups to local residents. So thank you, BLIA, for your activities.
I would also like to congratulate Oatley RSL Youth Netball Club on their recent annual presentation. Robyn Ellis, the president, does a great job and has for many years. It was good to be down there at Maso's in Mortdale to present a number of awards. The Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement Awards, which I commenced in 2014, are a good way of acknowledging the efforts of, particularly, our young kids in sport in the local community. As part of the broader Oatley RSL Youth Club, the netball club does a fantastic job in providing opportunities for our local kids.
I rise today to talk about a wonderful event I attended on the weekend in my electorate and to pay tribute to those people that organised the event—that was the Cyprus Community Festival, which was organised by their committee. I would like to pay tribute to Christos Ioannou, the former president, who has served the committee for many years; to the new president, Andreas Evdokiou, who has just taken the reins; and to all those involved in the festival. It was attended by thousands on the weekend—many of whom found themselves in Australia as refugees after 1974.
In 1974, as we all know, the island of Cyprus was occupied—and 37 per cent of that island still remains occupied. Since then, a so-called state has been declared, but it has been recognised by only one nation in the entire world—and it just happens, ironically, to be the nation that invaded in 1974. There are still 1,619 people missing. These people are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. We have, in that 37 per cent of the island, homes where the owners have not been allowed to return. They are still not allowed to return, and 42 years is far too long to still be waiting for a solution.
Many UN resolutions have been called for, basically having the same principle: respect for the human rights of all the people of the island. Here in Australia, we can play a role, and many members have raised this issue, and many of my colleagues in the South Australian parliament have also raised the issue. When you travel to Cyprus, as I have many times, both as an individual and as part of parliamentary delegations representing this parliament, it is an absolute tragedy to see the situation that exists over there. I have gone along the green line, the demilitarised zone, that divides the island. I have spoken with the Australian UN peacekeeping people that have been there over the years, including the Federal Police, who have made such a wonderful contribution to patrolling this zone since 1974. We can play a bigger and better role. Of course, we can raise this issue here in this parliament. Most importantly, Australia can play a role in providing for the implementation of UN resolutions.
Many people attended the community festival on the weekend, including the Treasurer of South Australia; Senator Nick Xenophon; many state MPs; and the mayor, Angela Evans, and they all had the same view—that 42 years is way too long. I know that talks have been taking place recently between the two communities and different nations that have an involvement. We all hope for a solution very soon.
I have a view—some may call it ideological—that regardless of people's politics the main thing I am most proud of as an Australian is that, in times of crisis such as ill health, death or attacks, we are all Australians. We band together and help each other.
I am a relative newbie to this world of politics. However, during the campaign a journalist asked me what the one thing was that most disappointed me about being a candidate in this new world of politics. I replied without hesitation: the Labor Party's blatant, cruel lie with respect to Medicare, not just because of its purpose—that is, to get ahead of the Liberal Party in the campaign—but because it had no regard to the real people, real people's emotions and lives: my constituents in Chisholm. I hail from the corporate and business world. It is not a perfect world, but the fundamental principle of integrity prevails, in my view, across the business world in this country. Sure, there is puffery and, some would say, stretching the truth in advertising, but for a blatant lie and blatant misleading conduct there are consequences, as there should be.
The Labor Party's lie with respect to Medicare did harm to the people of Chisholm, and one story shall stay with me forever. I took a phone call from a constituent in Mount Waverley, a suburb in the heart of Chisholm.. He sounded like a very lovely man. But he was very sad, anxious and distressed. Five days prior to him calling me, his wife of over 30 years had been diagnosed with cancer. He was distraught. A few days later, in the dead of night, he took a phone call from what was likely a union/Labor worker, who said to him that the Liberals were going to sell Medicare. 'Tell me it's not true, Julia,' he said, the emotion palpable in his voice. I spent half an hour reassuring this lovely Chisholm resident and wished him my very best for his wife's recovery.
Fast forward to yesterday in question time, and indeed now, and the Prime Minister referred to the misleading, blatant lie in a text message which was sent by the Labor Party to Australians across the country. The text was made to look like it was from Medicare, and again it said the same lie. I was disgusted at the Labor Party's response—the laughs, the carry-on and the loud guffaws across the chamber. All I could think about when I saw the opposition members across the chamber laughing and jeering was that lovely constituent in Mount Waverley. I hope he is well and that his wife has recovered, and that he knows that he can rest assured that Medicare is not being sold. As proud representatives in the Turnbull government, we will always ensure that the health of our Australians will be paramount.
The Turnbull government's proposed same-sex marriage plebiscite is a gross waste of money by a government that bemoans a 'budget emergency'. This plebiscite was never about achieving justice and fairness for same-sex attracted couples and their families; it is about a Prime Minister that is too weak to stand up to the extreme conservatives in his own party and that lacks the moral fibre to stick to his own personal beliefs. However, the chamber may be interested to know that the cost of the same-sex marriage plebiscite could fund every commitment that both the Labor and Liberal parties made to the people of Burt during the 2016 federal election campaign.
I spoke on Monday in the House about some of these priorities for the people of Burt. I urge this parliament to consider spending the money set aside for the same-sex marriage plebiscite on much-needed infrastructure in my electorate. Let this House do what it is here for: propose, debate and vote on legislation that guarantees justice and fairness for all Australians.
The $170 million being used by the Turnbull government for the same-sex marriage plebiscite could instead be used to provide $150,000 to Gosnells Community Legal Centre to fund their vitally important work, including specialised and dedicated legal representatives for victims of domestic violence—for which my seat of Burt has one of the highest rates anywhere in the state of Western Australia. It could fund the $1.3 million for improved synthetic turf surfaces for the Southern River Hockey Club and provide the $6 million towards the Barbagallo baseball park in Thornlie. It could also be used to contribute $2.4 million towards the expansion of the Thornlie Bowling Club and cover the $20 million commitment to the WA Primary Health Alliance.
In addition, it could cover the $150,000 for the mighty Forrestdale Sporting Association to investigate expansion so that they can continue to provide sporting opportunities all year round to their members. It could provide $10,000 to re-establish and develop the Armadale Gymnastics Club and $50,000 for a new electronic scoreboard and clubroom extension for the Armadale football club. It could also provide the $1.3 million to Hope Community Services so that they can continue their drug and alcohol rehabilitation and treatment programs with three years of funding certainty—something that this government has failed to do for many non-government organisations in my electorate that provide frontline community health services.
But it does not stop there; these funds could also contribute the $80 million towards the new Armadale Road Bridge that would make roads safer as well as relieve ever-increasing congestion in the seats of Burt and Fremantle, which the member for Fremantle and I have campaigned vigorously for. It could provide $10 million towards upgrading the Armadale Aquatic Centre to be enclosed as an all-year-round facility. It could also provide $150,000 for CCTV for the city of Armadale and $150,000 for community safety initiatives in the city of Gosnells. Finally, it could provide $25 million towards funding the replacement of Denny Avenue level crossing, which the member for Canning, Mr Hastie, promised in the Canning by-election to fix. But, at the end of the day, the government has abandoned that plan in the recent budget. It is happy to spend the money on a divisive, harmful and, ultimately, unnecessary plebiscite.
It is my hope that today brings an end to one of Victoria's saddest political periods: hopefully the vacant position that exists in the Victorian Legislative Council—and has existed for the last 2½ months due to my vacation of that seat—will be filled.
The Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, has simply decided to fly in the face of convention—to fly in the face of democracy—and has refused to have a joint sitting of the house of the Victorian parliament so that the duly elected Luke O'Sullivan from the National Party could take his rightful place in the legislative council in the Victorian parliament. This 2½ months of waiting was simply brought about by the fact that the Premier did not want to have the full complement of members in the legislative council and was quite happy for the Victorian people to go 2½ months with being not represented by a member of the Northern Victoria Region.
It was at the end of July that Luke O'Sullivan was preselected. As the successful preselected candidate, he should have been admitted into the Victorian parliament immediately upon the resumption of the Victorian parliament. However, for many months now, Daniel Andrews has decided that he would not have a joint sitting and that he would refuse a democratically elected member of the Victorian parliament to take his rightful place in the Victorian parliament.
Whilst we are happy to have others across the chamber lecture us about finances, Daniel Andrews just ripped up $1.1 billion for a road that he did not build, but he had to pay $1.1 billion in compensation. Daniel Andrews has also gone down the path of building sky rail. Daniel Andrews has also tried to attack the CFA. Unfortunately, all of those political issues, in my opinion, are dwarfed by the fact that he has simply refused to allow a duly elected member of parliament his rightful place in the House. It now looks as though this stand-off is going to be finished by today. We are hoping, very much so, that Luke O'Sullivan will be a duly elected member of parliament. I know Luke personally and I am sure he will do an amazing job.
In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the time for members constituency statements has concluded.
Sitting suspended from 10 : 30 to 16 : 03
In continuum, I start by saying what an honour it was to be re-elected. There were many issues in this election that were highlighted through my area. In particular, saving Medicare was a major issue that we campaigned upon. Locals were very concerned about the government's cuts to Medicare. The government's various versions of the GP tax, their cuts to Medicare rebates, their cuts to funding for pathology and diagnostic imaging and their plans to privatise Medicare were issues that locals were worried about. I heard every day from locals about these issues. They were very pleased about Labor's stance in opposing all these unfair cuts.
Education was another issue that came up many times in the election campaign. Again, locals were very positive about our commitments to fully funding the Gonski reforms on time and in full—and what a difference it would make locally. They were also very concerned about the coalition's plans for $100,000 university degrees. Another issue, of course, was climate change. We were committed to taking effective action on climate change, particularly through our commitment to renewable energy. Again, we had very positive responses to that.
In many parts of the nation—and certainly in my area—there were responses about housing affordability. This was a big issue on the north coast of New South Wales, as it was in many regions and right throughout the nation. Labor's plans for changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax were, again, met very positively in the community as a response to the issues surrounding housing affordability.
Accessing the NBN was, of course, a major issue—the lack of access to the NBN. This government's second-rate plan is an issue that I continue to hear about every day. It was, in particular, an issue that I heard about throughout the campaign. Mobile phone coverage was an issue, as well. In regional areas, it is quite appalling. People are, quite rightly, very angry with the Liberal-National government in relation to this.
Another major issue was marriage equality. Many people just want to see a vote in the parliament. I, like other members of the Labor Party, am very pleased that we are opposing the plebiscite. We believe there should be a vote in the parliament. I have been on the record as voting for marriage equality in 2012. I would like the opportunity to vote again for it in this parliament very soon, because it is very important to have that in place. It was a major issue that came up. Another major issue was that the community was really wanting a banking royal commission. Time and time again we hear about the concerns people have in their dealings with the banks. Still, throughout the community, people are calling for a banking royal commission. There were very positive responses to Labor's plans. Throughout the election, we also heard people's concerns about the Liberal-National plans for expanding harmful coal seam gas in our area. It is always a very big issue for the north coast of New South Wales.
Labor made a range of promises throughout the election campaign. As I said, they were received very positively, particularly the $20 million commitment to the Your Child, Our Future plan. The plan would benefit every child in every school in the electorate of Richmond, with an additional $20 million set to flow to local schools. We also committed $2 million to The Buttery rehabilitation service, which makes a very big difference in the lives of many people seeking rehabilitation. We also made a commitment of $2 million to mobile black spot funding for Lennox Head, Ocean Shores, Pottsville and Uki. We also made a commitment of $1 million for the Kingscliff Sport and Recreation Complex to make sure there was a really good sports complex at Kingscliff. We also announced plans to roll out fibre to the premises for the NBN for up to 20,000 homes. All of our commitments were received very well by the community. These are all important issues that I will continue to pressure the government on.
Throughout the campaign, the National Party made a number of election commitments locally. I will continue to hold the government to account to deliver on each and every one of those in full. I have placed questions on notice to the relevant ministers as to the time frames around these promises. I will pursue these in many forums until each and every one of those commitments is delivered. I will run through those commitments, which I will be fighting for. We had: $3 million committed for the Ballina Airport road; $2.7 million for local roads upgrading; $1 million for the Salt Surf Life Saving Club upgrade; $250,000 for the Ballina weir; $200,000 for a koala habitat restoration on the Tweed Coast; $125,000 for the Tweed art gallery for rooftop solar power; $65,000 for the Bangalow Men's Shed; $65,000 for the Ballina AFL team's change rooms; $62,000 for the Murwillumbah basketball courts; $20,000 for the Casuarina Beach Rugby Club; and $18,000 for the Cudgen Headland Surf Life Saving Club. In all of those issues, I will hold the government to account to make sure that they are all delivered.
I would also like to touch on some of the coalition's comments regarding Tweed Hospital during the election campaign. Just like their state Liberal-National Party counterparts, the coalition really is full of broken promises and, indeed, false promises when it comes to the Tweed Hospital. On the back of the state member for Tweed's broken promise about funding for the Tweed Hospital, during the federal election campaign we had the local Nationals candidate and the then Minister for Rural Health, Senator Nash, visit the hospital and make no commitments at all. Instead, they said the amount needed to fix it was uncertain, with the figure to be finalised in the coming month. I would now like to know what process is in place to ascertain that amount and what action they will be taking. I suspect the answer to both questions is 'none' and 'none'. It really was just a bandaid to get through the election. There never was going to be any study into the hospital's needs. It was just another broken promise.
I note that these particular broken promises were made in our local paper, the Tweed Daily News,on 5 June. The Nationals candidate, in company with the then rural health minister, Fiona Nash, claimed costing on the entire project would take another two months. On 27 June, the Nationals candidate again said that it was uncertain what amount was needed, with the figure to be finalised in the coming months. I do not think anything will happen on that front. As I say, it was just a bit of a bandaid during the election campaign.
I would also like to add we, like all those candidates across the country, had a whole variety of interesting community forums. I think it is great for candidates to be out there talking to individuals and interested groups about their issues. We had others in Banora Point, Ballina, Murwillumbah, Byron Bay and Mullumbimby where we canvassed a whole range of issues. It was great to be able to hear first-hand some of the concerns people have. Of course there were many things we agreed on and some things we disagreed on. People did raise some very important issues.
One issue I want to speak about is vaccination, which was raised in a particular forum in Mullumbimby. I have been on the record many times talking about how much I support vaccination. I think it is very important for the overall health needs of individuals, families and communities. I do acknowledge that in Mullumbimby there are people who have differing views. Whilst being understanding and respectful of my views, which I have been clear about, I was asked at that forum to reiterate for the parliament there are some who do have different views, and I am happy to do that whilst acknowledging I do disagree with them. I did make a commitment that I would bring that up.
One the really big issues raised was that of the Tweed Valley Women's Service. This came up a lot in my electorate. I have spoken before here about the devastating impact of the forced closure of the women's service. I continue to call on the New South Wales government to act urgently to restore full funding and open this important service. The service was forced to close after its funding was suddenly cut. It was advised on 17 December 2015 its contract had suddenly been cancelled by its lead agency On Track Community Programs and that meant $580,000 in state government funding along with 13 jobs were suddenly cut just before Christmas. I like, so many in our community, was shocked and outraged that this could actually occur given the vital services it provides. It has in fact for more than 30 years provided counselling, education, mentoring, crisis accommodation, housing and support for women experiencing domestic violence.
The North Coast Nationals MPs and the state government have chosen to completely ignore locals by failing to assist with what is a very desperate situation. The complete inaction by the New South Wales government and local Nationals MPs is, quite frankly, shameful and irresponsible given the circumstances. So I am still calling on those Nationals MPs, particularly the member for Tweed and the member for Lismore, to explain to the community why their government allowed On Track Community Programs to suddenly cut this funding from this important service, because all the anecdotal reports that we hear say the services for those requiring support have decreased since the closure of the Tweed Valley Women's Service and that On Track is just not providing similar services. It keeps promising it is but I keep hearing from people that just simply is not the case. Quite frankly, it is not good enough. The fact is both our state Nationals members have shown they are unwilling and unable to do the job they were elected to do. So I will continue to work with the executive of the Tweed Valley Women's Service and our community to have this service reopened.
A petition has been launched demanding the New South Wales government restore the funding to this service and the community response so far has been overwhelming, more than 7,000 signatures to date. We will get the 10,000 signatures required to force this debate in the state parliament and to force those state Nationals MPs to explain to the community what they will do about this because so far we have just seen inaction.
We have all seen reports that violence against women is at epidemic proportions. As a former police officer, I saw first-hand the devastating impact of domestic violence on women and children within our community. We do have a crisis that needs to be addressed and services like the Tweed Valley Women's Service are desperately needed and their full funding must be restored. This situation can be fixed today, can be fixed right now so I again call upon the New South Wales Premier to listen to our community and again I call on the Nationals to act and to fix this.
There were many issues, as I said, that were raised during the election campaign. When we look at the overall situation, I think we saw in the campaign that it was certainly the case that the Liberal-Nationals parties are for the big end of town—the multimillionaires and big business—and the Labor Party is looking after those everyday people in our community. That was certainly the message I consistently heard from locals when we looked at the range of policies, particularly those related to health care, saving Medicare and education, but a range of issues were raised.
As I said at the beginning, it truly has been an honour to have been re-elected and I again want to thank the people of Richmond. It is indeed a real privilege for all of us to be serving in this House and representing the people within our electorates. I am very fortunate that Richmond, apart from being the most beautiful part of Australia, is an incredibly diverse electorate.
We also, with the redistribution, had some changes. I lost the town of Nimbin and surrounds. Nimbin is a great area. But instead I now have Ballina included in the electorate of Richmond, and it has been wonderful—the people of Ballina and their community have been so incredibly welcoming, and I thank them for that. It is a real privilege to have Ballina as part of the Richmond electorate now.
It is a very interesting and diverse area. And, as I say, they are very warm and welcoming people. It is a very diverse area, from Ballina up to Byron Bay and then up to the Tweed and the border, including Murwillumbah, Mullumbimby, Lennox Head, Ocean Shores—a very diverse area, with a whole range of people from different backgrounds, and we should celebrate and continue to acknowledge that we are fortunate enough to live in such a diverse area.
Having those ranges of community forums, again it was great to listen to the concerns that people had—and they certainly did have them! In particular, a lot of the self-funded retirees' forums raised a lot of concerns about this government, as well as many of the other concerns they have listed.
I would certainly like to thank all those people who assisted us during the campaign, who were out there fighting hard for Labor values and for a Labor government, knowing what a difference it would make to areas like mine on the New South Wales North Coast, but indeed right throughout the country. They certainly knew how important it is. And we will keep fighting for that and keep standing up for those values, making sure that we strive towards equality in my area. We certainly want to see that for the whole region.
In particular we have a large proportion of older Australians. So of course those people, who have particularly complex healthcare needs, were very, very worried about the situation with Medicare and very concerned about the GP tax and how it would impact their healthcare choices. In fact, they said they just could not afford to go to the doctor if it was in place. So one of the things to do moving forward is to make sure we protect Medicare. I spoke in the House this morning about needing a fully-funded Medicare MRI licence for the Tweed Hospital. That is a campaign we will be continuing with, to make sure that we can have those proper health services within the region of the New South Wales North Coast.
But, as I say, in terms of the election, it is an honour to have been returned with an increased margin. As I have said to many locals: whether you voted for me or not, my door is always open to assist everyone. That has always been my approach: to assist all locals, whatever their concerns may be—indeed, even if they may be state or local council concerns. I am here to help them with whatever worries they might have. It is a real honour and a privilege to be in this role, and I do take it very seriously. I thank the people of Richmond for putting their trust and their faith in me, and I will strive to always fight for them and to make sure that we get a fair go for the North Coast.
I thank the honourable member for her contribution. The question is that the bill now be read a second time. I look forward to the contribution from the honourable member for Shortland.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate you on your appointment to the Speaker's panel. I am pleased to make a contribution on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 and cognate bills. As a result of the electoral redistribution in New South Wales, my home, along with those of 18,000 other electors, was transferred into the electorate of Shortland, and I was humbled to have been preselected by the rank-and-file members of the Labor Party to be their candidate in the July election. I was then honoured and privileged to be elected as the fourth member for Shortland. I would like to place on the record my sincere gratitude to the people of Shortland for placing their trust and confidence in me to be their representative in this House. All of us who serve in this place are so fortunate to be the voice of our communities in the national parliament.
At the outset, I want to pay tribute to the former member for Shortland, Jill Hall. Jill has served the people of Shortland and Lake Macquarie for over two decades at all three levels of government. I was humbled to have received her support and, on behalf of the people of Shortland, I thank her for her dedicated and tireless service for our region. I also pay tribute to her husband, Lindsay, and all her family, who have always been a great source of support for Jill. I wish her all the best in her retirement. Given that she has family in Canberra, I am sure she will not be a stranger to parliament.
I also want to acknowledge the two members for Shortland who served before Jill: Peter Morris—he and the member for Grayndler were the two most distinguished ministers for transport in the history of the Commonwealth—and the first member for Shortland, Charlie Griffiths. Both Jill and Peter continue to serve on the Shortland federal electorate council of the Labor Party, and I look forward to continuing to benefit from their counsel. I am truly lucky to be only the fourth member for Shortland in its long history, it having been established in 1949.
I would also like to thank the hundreds of Labor Party branch members and volunteers who worked on the Shortland campaign. I will not name anyone individually, as there are just too many, but I do not want to leave anyone out either. All of you have worked so hard. You know who you are. And I am eternally grateful for your hard work. The Labor Party's greatest strength is our rank and file members, and I am humbled by the support and trust they have placed in me. I also want to acknowledge the support I received from the labour movement, specifically the CFMEU mining and energy division, the Maritime Union of Australia, the SDA, the AWU and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. I look forward to working with them to ensure that working people get a fair go both locally and nationally.
All members of the House are rightly proud of the communities we represent. Shortland is bordered to the east by the Pacific Ocean and to the west by the largest saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere, the magnificent Lake Macquarie. It stretches from its southern border on the Central Coast, around Budgewoi and San Remo, to its northern border in Lake Macquarie, around Charlestown and Cardiff. I am biased, but I would disagree with the member for Richmond. Clearly the best beaches in Australia—
Ms Bird interjecting—
are in Shortland, member for Cunningham, and they are an essential part of who we are and how we live our lives; as are the lakes that characterise our community—Lake Macquarie, Lake Munmorah and Budgewoi Lake. They are truly stunning places. It is no coincidence that some of Australia's finest athletes, particularly sailors, are far from the Central Coast and Lake Macquarie. I congratulate the many sailors who won medals at the recent Olympics. Whilst Shortland is blessed by magnificent natural beauty, the true wonders are the people who live there. Our greatest asset are our people and that is why I am so very proud to represent them in this parliament.
My priorities for Shortland are the Labor Party's priorities for Australia—growing jobs and protecting and enhancing our most vital public services: health and education. The economy in Shortland, and the Hunter more broadly, is diverse with jobs in a variety of sectors ranging from health, education and training, hospitality and business services to retail and construction. However, the energy, mining and manufacturing sectors do remain the bedrock of the Shortland economy. Unemployment in the Hunter region is above the national average and it has been for some time. This is the greatest challenge we face. However, I am a firm believer that our region is well placed to transition and grow, but it is essential that we have the right policy settings in place to ensure we have strong employment growth locally and nationally.
The hallmark of a civilised society is how we treat our sick, and the universal provision of health care through Medicare is the bedrock of that civilisation. We saw the pathetic outburst on election night from the Prime Minister that I think characterises the greatest dummy-spit in the history of Australian politics. The Liberal Party have never and will never truly support Medicare or the concept of universal health care. They mouth weasel words, but in the end they are not truly committed to it because they do not understand the impact of it. The Labor Party founded the Medicare system and we are truly the great protectors of it. Unfortunately, the people of Shortland know firsthand the Liberal Party's contempt for Medicare, as the Medicare office at Belmont was closed by the Turnbull government earlier this year. The Labor Party opened the Medicare office and the Liberal Party have closed it. I would like to, again, pay tribute to Jill Hall for her years of dedicated campaigning to get a Medicare office in Belmont reopened. Unfortunately, her efforts were undone by the Prime Minister and his government in closing down that said office.
Health care in general is of fundamental importance to the Shortland community. All sections of our community, from young families to older Australians, see access to health care based on need for treatment and not ability to pay for treatment as part of our Australian way of life. This is particularly pertinent in Shortland, as we have the seventh oldest population on average in Australia—so we have a great need for good healthcare services. Yet, our people continue to suffer from the Medicare rebate freeze and the cuts to pathology and medical imaging bulk-billing incentives. There are three main public hospitals that service the people of Shortland: Wyong, Belmont and the John Hunter. These are all suffering as a result of the Abbott Turnbull government's savage cuts to the public health system. The government needs to follow the advice of the new AMA president, who recently said, 'The government must first scrap the Medicare rebate freeze, reverse the cuts to pathology and medical imaging bulk-billing incentives and properly fund public hospitals.' Labor are the only party dedicated to universal health care and we will always champion our Medicare system, that Australians depend on and are so rightly proud of.
Our future prosperity is dependent on a first-class education system. Labor are the party of Gonski. Gonski is absolutely essential for our children to receive the very best start in life. Gonski is quintessentially an Australian solution. It says: look through the sectarian divide, look through the debates of the fifties and sixties and just have the Commonwealth government, for the first time, fund purely on need. It also says to be blind to sectors: 'We don't care whether a student goes to a state school, a Catholic school, an independent Christian school—whatever.' The Commonwealth's role is to fund based on need to guarantee a base level of funding for every student with only five additional weightings based on intellectual or physical disability, low socio-economic status, an ATSI background or a non-English speaking background.
However, the very simple reality is that the Liberal Party has failed on education. The Liberal Party won the 2013 election based on a fundamental commitment that there was not a skerrick of difference—there was not a cigarette paper's difference—between the Liberal Party policy on Gonski and the Labor Party policy on Gonski. Yet this is one of their many broken promises that undid former Prime Minister Abbott and that is still bedevilling the current Prime Minister. The Abbott-Turnbull government has cut $30 billion from schools. This is so blatantly against our national interest and is a damning indictment on their priorities.
For my home state of New South Wales, this cut means that $9.5 billion has been cut from schools. In Shortland, schools will be a staggeringly $164 million worse off because of these Liberal cuts. Schools like Windale Public School, St Brendan's Lake Munmorah and Cardiff Public School will all suffer because of these misguided and devious policies of the Abbott-Turnbull government. I say to the people of Shortland that the next Labor government will have investment in education as a core priority, as we did when we were last in office. As with Medicare and health care, Australians know that Labor backs them when it comes to education.
The other key priority for my electorate is communications. The Lake Macquarie region on the northern Central Coast has the highest number of NBN fibre-to-the-node rollouts in the nation. I could say that as if I was boasting, but, unfortunately, it is a tragedy because the rollout has been a farce. The rollout has led to community members not having phone or internet service for months on end. Ultimately, when the connection has been established, they often that their speeds are as bad as ADSL2 services in their areas—and, in some cases, worse. This is the great story of Mr Turnbull's 'fraudband'. Fibre to the node does not work. Fibre to the node is massively expensive, yet delivers a service woeful compared to what fibre to the premises would deliver. Ultimately, we will have to redo it all at much greater cost and inconvenience to the Australian people. It is a massive issue in my electorate and it is the issue I commit to campaigning on—both NBN provision and then making sure those services are adequate.
Two other communication aspects in my electorate are mobile phone reception and television reception. Parts of my electorate are only 90 minutes from Sydney, the largest city in Australia, and Newcastle itself is the seventh largest city in the country. Yet we have many residents who cannot get free-to-air television reception. Just imagine that: in 2016, many of my constituents cannot get free-to air-television reception. That is a disgrace and is something that I am committed to working to resolve.
Briefly, turning to my portfolios that I have been allocated in the shadow ministry, I have been very honoured to be appointed as the shadow assistant minister for climate change and energy and the shadow assistant minister for infrastructure. I am very much look forward to working with my colleagues, the member for Port Adelaide and the member for Grayndler, in these areas. Climate change is a fundamental challenge to our way of life. The Labor Party is the only political party with a serious policy on climate change. The government's Direct Action policy is a joke of a policy. It is a policy the current Prime Minister labelled a 'fig leaf' for doing nothing and 'fiscal recklessness on a grand scale'. It lacks all economic and environmental credibility and it wastes taxpayers' money in providing subsidies to big polluters.
On the other extreme we have the Greens, who have no credibility at all on climate change. If not for their political opportunism in 2009 in voting with the coalition, we would have had an emissions trading scheme in place for seven years now, firmly bedded down, cutting pollution and proving to people that the sky has not fallen in. Whyalla has not been wiped off the map and you can still buy a roast leg of lamb for less than $100. But the Greens failed on their great claim of environmental credibility.
On infrastructure, I look forward to working with the member for Grayndler on assisting with infrastructure policy. Sound investment in infrastructure is fundamentally important to growth and productivity. The last Labor government has an outstanding legacy in this area and the member for Grayndler was an exceptional infrastructure minister. Labor created Infrastructure Australia to independently assess the viability and worth of proposed projects. We began the rollout of the fair dinkum National Broadband Network. We invested more in public transport than all the previous Commonwealth governments combined since Federation. When we left office, Australia was ranked first amongst developed nations in terms of infrastructure investment as a proportion of GDP, having been ranked 20th under John Howard. I particularly look forward to working on how we more effectively and proactively source and encourage private investment in major infrastructure projects. I also look forward to working on Labor's cities policy. Four out of five Australians live in cities, and Labor believes that government investment and sound planning can boost productivity and improve the sustainability and liveability of our cities.
I close today by thanking my beautiful family for their ongoing love and support. Above all, I thank my wife, Keara, and my children, Rachel and Michael. All of us in this place know that our families make great sacrifices to give us the opportunity to contribute to our communities and our country. I am forever grateful for their support and love. I would also like to thank all the other members of my family and friends who have contributed to me being here. I particularly want to single out my mother-in-law, Gail. Gail has been the bedrock of my family. Gail has been incredibly supportive of my continuing to represent Lake Macquarie and the Central Coast in this parliament, and it is fair to say that my family could not exist without the ongoing support, love and sacrifice of my mother-in-law, Gail. So thank you very much for that support, love and assistance.
I again record my gratitude to the people of Shortland for electing me as their representative in this House. There is no greater privilege than to represent over 100,000 people, as each of us do in this House. It is truly the greatest privilege that I will have in my professional life. My great commitment to the people of Shortland is that I will always fight for them and I will always do the best thing for the people of Shortland. Not only will I exercise my judgement; I will always tell you when I disagree with your stance and why I disagree with it. I will always endeavour to represent the best traditions of the Hunter Valley and the Central Coast.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I too congratulate you for joining the Speaker's panel. This debate on the appropriations legislation is an opportunity to look across the agenda of this government and to look back on the election campaign and the foundation that it laid for the coming parliament.
Yesterday, when this debate commenced, was the 100th day since the last federal election—100 days since the Prime Minister promised us 'stable government'. Well, it is not going well. A fortnight ago, the Prime Minister showed that he is a fake Sydney Swans fan when he could not even get off the second verse of their team song on Melbourne radio, but we have known that he is a fake leader for some months now. He is unable to say two sentences without first checking the words with Senator Bernardi or the member for Dawson and the ideological extremists in his party room.
One hundred days into the term of this government, it is clear that the Prime Minister is following the ideological extremists in his party room instead of leading them. The seeds of the destruction of this Prime Minister's leadership authority were sown early in his tenure, indeed before he became the Prime Minister. When launching his challenge against the member for Warringah, the Prime Minister had a choice. He could have said to his party room that he was up for the role but that to be effective he needed to be able to lead; and to say that he would take his colleagues views into account, surely, but that he would not trade away his own deeply held personal convictions. We all know that this is not the choice that the Prime Minister made. Instead, the Prime Minister built himself a gilded cage. He offered up his personal political convictions on climate change, on marriage equality and on the republic, and he handed power to the ideological extremists in his party room. To realise his life's ambition, he chose to destroy himself.
The Prime Minister made a fundamental political miscalculation by trying to negotiate with extremists. As David Cameron has learnt this year, and as the US Republican leadership is learning as we speak, you cannot negotiate with ideologues. If you give them a win, they will just be back asking for more on a another issue the next week. For them, the point is not the substance and it is not the outcome. It is about showing that you are more ideologically pure than those around you. You will never be able to placate them, Prime Minister. The more that the Prime Minister moves towards them, the more that they will move away from him. This is the dynamic that was set in place the moment the Prime Minister went and bent the knee to the conservatives in his party room. A real leader would understand this, but not this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's actions created a leadership vacuum on the conservative side of Australian politics, both in the coalition party room and in the broader community and, since the start of the federal election, a very nasty sludge has begun to seep into the void. Some of it has been coming from his own party; some from parties outside the coalition.
The last federal election will be remembered for some time not as the jobs and growth election, but as the election that returned the politics of One Nation to this federal parliament. The repulsive, un-Australian views of this political party do not reflect the successful multicultural nation that we have built over the last 20 years. However, the scapegoating, snake oil-selling politics of One Nation was allowed in the last federal election by the vacuum of leadership left by this Prime Minister. The return of One Nation followed an election campaign in which the Prime Minister allowed the immigration minister to claim that 'illiterate and innumerate refugees' would take Australian jobs and 'languish' on the dole—without rebuke. Goodbye dog whistle; hello megaphone. This was an election campaign in which the Prime Minister allowed the member for Dawson to publicly oppose the resettlement of any Muslim refugees in his electorate because:
These refugees will either fill jobs Australian workers can do or they will be on welfare, paid for by more taxes from Australian workers.
Again, without rebuke. The Prime Minister let this genie out of the bottle, and now Australia will reap the whirlwind.
Since the election we have seen these fringe elements of Australian politics move to centre stage and set up shop running the Senate and the government. We found out who was really in charge of this government in the very first week of this parliament. Before the Governor-General's speech had even been delivered the public learnt of a notice of motion for a bill gutting section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act that had been signed by every coalition backbench senator bar one, as well as seven crossbenchers, including the newly-elected One Nation senators. The repeal and the gutting of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act did not appear in the Governor-General's speech; this was an agenda being imposed on this Prime Minister by the extremists in his party room.
The sexual tension between the extreme right of the Liberal Party and One Nation only grew from this first encounter. The member for Dawson stated that One Nation:
… were not looking at ousting an MP who was advocating the same sort of views espoused by One Nation.
And further:
The views of One Nation to a degree are the views of many in the rank and file of the Liberal-National Party.
Again, with no rebuke from the Prime Minister. Senator Bernardi even suggested that:
… One Nation and others who are saying the things that I think the Liberal Party should be saying, with a bit more nuance and maybe a little bit more delicacy.
This is Malcolm Turnbull's LNP, a party of MPs proudly proclaiming that they are 'advocating the same sort of views espoused by One Nation' and that they 'should be saying the same things as One Nation' but maybe with a little bit more spin and a little bit more political sophistication on top—again, with no rebuke from the absent Prime Minister.
We already know from hard experience that this Prime Minister is too weak to do anything about this, but the failure of any Liberal MPs to speak out against this mollycoddling of One Nation has been genuinely depressing. I grew up in Queensland. I remember the first time Hansonism came to this country, and I recall the leadership of Senator Ron Boswell and I recall the leadership of Premier Rob Borbidge, a man who took a stand against the politics of One Nation. They fought it in the communities, risked their political future and burnt political capital, because they knew that the values of One Nation were not the values of our country. They knew that the future of our country rests not with the scapegoating and snake oil of One Nation, but in the inclusive multicultural society that we have become. They stood up to One Nation and they saw off the threat—they did not accommodate it. Today, instead of being rebuked, these MPs who have accommodated One Nation have been invited to the centre of policymaking in the Turnbull government, writing policy on superannuation, on the backpacker tax and on climate change.
The Prime Minister's humiliation on climate change is now surely complete. From an opposition leader who once said that he would never lead a political party that was not as committed to real action on climate change as he was to a Prime Minister running a baseless scare campaign on renewable energy, the member for Wentworth's fall has been precipitous. Before the Prime Minister was elected to the office he publicly stated that he believed that Australia needed to move to nearly 100 per cent renewable energy by 2050. Last week he was attacking the South Australian Labor Party for supporting renewable energy in that state. Before the election he was congratulating the South Australian government on their renewable energy policies. After the election he was ignoring advice from energy market experts and listening to Barnaby Joyce about the operation of the South Australian grid. It is indeed the most exciting time to be an extreme conservative ideologue in Australia!
Indeed, the only agility and innovation that the Prime Minister has shown is in the speed of his capitulation to the right wing of his party. It is almost as though this has been the sole product of the Prime Minister's innovation agenda, the ideas boom: an act for capitulating on your moderate values. It is not Siri; it is Bernardi. 'Bernardi, can I have a free vote on marriage equality in the parliament?' 'No, Prime Minister.' 'Bernardi, can I take real action on climate change?' 'I'm sorry, Prime Minister, I don't understand that.'
In contrast, Labor has provided staunch leadership and direction about the kind of country that we want to be. We understand that you cannot pander to the scapegoating of populist ideologues. Australia needs a government that will stand up to the hard right's demagoguery. Unlike the Prime Minister during the campaign, the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated leadership. He immediately condemned the immigration minister's appalling and ignorant comments, saying:
Mr Dutton didn’t just insult refugees when he made those comments. He insulted the millions of migrants who've contributed to making this a truly great country—refugees like Victor Chang, like Richard Pratt, like Frank Lowy.
I represent an electorate that is comprised of around 60 per cent of the constituents being either born overseas or having their parents born overseas. Suburbs that I represent, like Sunshine, have two-thirds of the constituents speaking a language other than English at home. I have many thousand Vietnamese Australians, refugees to this country, who have enriched our nation beyond measure. They noticed the Prime Minister's comments and they noticed the Leader of the Opposition's leadership in rebuking the immigration minister's comments. They know the value of the nation that we have built and of the Australian identity that we have worked so hard to build since Federation.
The Labor Party, working in conjunction with a broad-based campaign from Australia's multicultural communities stopped and reversed the Abbott government's first attempts to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and again showed true leadership when this parliament by again successfully pushing for the same racial harmony motion agreed by the House in 1996 earlier this week. The contrast could not be starker. When the parliament returned after the election, the priority of the conservative ideologues in the coalition party room was a motion to gut the Racial Discrimination Act. The priority of the Labor Party was a unifying motion that could be supported by all members in the parliament, condemning race-based politics in this country. The distinction is stark.
Labor understands that we need to respond to the appeal of One Nation with a sharp political strategy that addresses people's legitimate grievances. Government must invest in its people and promote fairness and inclusion, investing in education and tackling inequality. A generation ago, the Beattie government responded to marginalisation by devolving public institutions closer to these communities, making sure that disenfranchised voters felt more included in the democratic process. There were a range of democratic innovations pursued by the Beattie government. They pushed institutions closer to the public and then they brought government to them. They heard priorities for investment from marginalised communities, from people who felt disenfranchised, and they matched government investment and funding to those concerns.
That is the way that you confront the scourge of One Nation. You do not pander to snake-oil politics. You do not pander to scapegoating. You listen to legitimate concerns and you act in response. We can respond to the rise of One Nation by working together to form a stronger social fabric built on human connectivity and cultural awareness between our oldest and newest Australians, as countless Australians have done before. We still have boundless plains to share. The return to darkness within our polity and our society can only emerge out of one thing, and the only reason this genie has been let out of the bottle, is the political weakness of our leaders.
Labor have always known what to do in politics: to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves; to give voice to the voiceless. It is embedded in our DNA and we will continue to fight. But I challenge the Prime Minister: join us in fighting this. Stand up to the Hague. Take control of your own party. Follow the model of leadership provided by the conservative leaders of the Hanson era. Look to the example of Senator Ron Boswell. Look to the example of Rob Borbidge. Look, even, to the example of John Howard, who got there in the end after some prodding from Alexander Downer. Do not go down the path of accommodation and encouragement of this kind of snake-law politics. The Labor Party will not. We will draw a line in the sand. My community would expect nothing else.
We see the benefits of diversity. We see the benefits of the nation that we have become. We see the journey that Australia has taken to become the diverse, tolerant, successful nation that we are today. This is a prize, a benefit, that we must go to all lengths to preserve. Labor will provide this leadership at all levels. In Victoria, at least, the coalition opposition is signed on to this approach. We have a saying in Victoria that multiculturalism and support for migration is bipartisan in Victoria. I give the Liberal Party in Victoria credit for that. This is the model that we must pursue. We need to take that bipartisan support. We need to take the leadership in marginalising extremist views and marginalising these views that jeopardise what is most important to our nation. But it starts from the top. It starts with leaders providing guidance on what is acceptable and what is not. We will continue to provide this leadership in the parliament and I call on the Prime Minister to do so too.
I would like to start by associating myself with a lot of the very wise words about the current lack of leadership and the invitation for our leaders, in particular, the Prime Minister, to put into action some of those words that he used today when the Prime Minister of Singapore was here. He said we are a successful multicultural community—it is nice to say these things when another Prime Minister visits but it is another thing when the rubber hits the road to stand up to people that might have a little bit of something on you. But, I think when it comes to leadership, if people see someone actually taking stands based on principle, people respond to that. I think the community responds to that and it will lead to a more cohesive and stronger community. That is what we all desire.
I am also concerned about attempts to gut the Racial Discrimination Act. I will talk about a meeting I had with a multicultural centre for the Northern Territory just the other day. There is a lot of concern in the community—concern that was probably not there a couple of years ago, maybe even 18 months ago. There is a rising tone of concern within our community in relation to racism, and I made sure that everyone at that meeting knew that my office was open to them and I would be willing to listen to examples of racism happening in the community because it is important that we show leadership in this area.
In relation to the appropriation bills, I would like to make a number of points, some that relate specifically to my electorate and some for the future of our country. As all honourable members know, Labor are not blocking appropriation bills. We are acting responsibly. We have supported around $6.3 billion in savings in the government's omnibus bills. We have done that, but it is important to realise that this does not give the government's economic plan a tick, in fact, far from it.
I think part of the reason we regained some seats—including mine—at the last election is that the government has lost touch. When you think of a $50 billion tax cut to corporations and, potentially, some not paying as much tax as they could, when people are having troubles paying their own bills—particularly in an electorate like mine, with the higher costs of living—then I think people start scratching their heads a bit. They say: 'Well, what is this government's plan, really, apart from parroting "jobs and growth"? Where are their priorities? Are we their priority or is big business?' Big business, obviously, is a very important part of our economy, but is that where the priorities should lie or is there some other work we can do to try to ensure that everyone is contributing to the welfare of our country?
When I say 'welfare', I mean looking after people on the pension; looking after people who are in areas where there is not much work and helping to provide incentives for them to gain work; and looking after people's mental health—it is Mental Health Week. They are important priorities. The Prime Minister talks about participation in the economy, but then you have the defunding of the NT Working Women's Centre at the end of the year—a working women's centre that supports women who are most vulnerable in the workplace. It is no good for the heart and soul of our country and for our workplaces. It is also no good for the economy; there is a big cost to the economy.
Inequality is a rising cost to the economy in our country. Inequality is rising and I can tell you that it is felt pretty keenly in my electorate of Solomon—growing populations, young families. You can see in areas that there is a hollowing out of the aspirational middle classes. People really start to struggle and, unfortunately, they just move south, because it is difficult to hang around Darwin and Palmerston if you cannot afford to pay the bills—you need to head south. We have had a decrease in population in recent times. Some of those costs and pressures are starting to settle a bit in the housing market, but it is still a big challenge.
We are proud, on our side of politics, to believe in a really solid minimum wage. Unfortunately, for a lot of workers their wages in real terms are going backwards. Obviously, everyone is aware that we have slowing wage growth. The coalition want to cut penalty rates—well, why wouldn't you?—from young people who are just trying to get on a path to their future! Why would you do that to people who need that extra money from penalty rates to support their families, support their kids and help their kids to afford university, because that is going to be more expensive as well. There is, unfortunately, a lack of a fuller appreciation for the effect of some of these sorts of policies from the coalition.
Inequality is at a high, and that does have a cost to our economy—as does something else that has been in the media this week: the ongoing shemozzle of the backpacker tax. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources today tried to have a go at us because we simply want to scrutinise the measure of 19 per cent as the new, backflipped tax rate for backpackers, when even some of the government's own advisers say that the case probably does not stack up. The modelling—what is the modelling? To take a couple more weeks to have a look at that I think is a sensible thing to do. But when the government's own modelling says that perhaps it is not going to achieve the desired outcomes, I think we are right to scrutinise it.
It has had an enormous impact on the economy of the Northern Territory. In the Top End we have got mango growers who literally need thousands of backpackers. It has had a big impact. A lot of the damage has already been done. It took them 18 months to decide that going from zero tax for the first $18,000, which was attractive and brought backpackers to the Top End—they spend their money in the Top End and that is good for the economy, for tourism and for the growers—to 32 per cent. They then scratched their heads when there was a 40 per cent decrease in the number of backpackers. That has had a significant effect on the economy in the Top End. To spend 18 months on that and then suggest that we are delaying things I think is pretty disingenuous. But I digress. The ATO and a number of experts have got questions to answer. As I personally represent a lot of the businesses in the Top End I would like to hear some of the answers.
When it comes to the commitments of the coalition and the funding of those commitments there is the PET scanner. I know some people in this chamber would have a deep interest in the provision of medical services to people who are in the fight of their life against cancer. The Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction in the country without a PET scanner.
An honourable member: What do you want to scan pets for?
That's very funny. I will teach you, if you want. A PET scanner is a diagnostic tool that uses radioactive isotopes to track where the cancer is in the body. It shows oncologists where the cancer is. That is really helpful in saving their lives, which we think is really important. The coalition promised a PET scanner. They actually said that it is on its way—presumably, in a truck going up the Stuart Highway to Darwin—six years ago.
An honourable member: It's a slow truck.
A very slow truck. There were many breakdowns along the way perhaps. The current foreign minister stood in the middle of our city over six years ago promising a PET scanner.
When you are not in government obviously you can lobby and ultimately just do your best, but for three years this coalition has been in government. There has not even been a diagram drawn of what this facility will look like. I took the opportunity to go to the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne and meet with one of the leading nuclear medical professionals in our country—Professor Rod Hicks—who gave me a brief on exactly what sort of facility we need in Darwin to house the PET scanner.
Not even a diagram for that facility has been produced in three years of coalition government, so we are starting from scratch in Darwin. We are the only jurisdiction in the country not to have a PET scanner. Territorians with cancer continue to have to fly interstate, away from their families, to have these scans. It is simply not good enough. I have asked what the $15 million will cover—a PET scanner is about $2.5 million. We want to make sure that the coalition is actually committed to providing it this time.
I want to touch on one more thing. I was really happy to speak in this place in support of the member for Canning's motion in relation to ADF personnel serving overseas. I quoted Ray and Pam Palmer, who lost their son in Afghanistan in 2010. Ray and Pam are good friends with Sir Angus Houston. I was lucky enough to speak with Sir Angus about the plight of returned servicemen, veterans, in our country. He is obviously very passionate about improving the system of support.
I have approached the veterans' affairs minister about the fact that the Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction in the country that does not have a deputy commissioner for veterans' affairs.
I do not know whether members here are aware—but I am pretty sure they would be—that we have a big defence community in Darwin in the Northern Territory. We have lots of veterans, more and more veterans moving out into the community but the CEO essentially of the Department of Veterans' Affairs has been away from us. I wrote to the minister many weeks ago now and spoke with him personally in the last couple of days and he is committed to getting an answer back. But I need to stress that the ex-service community is feeling unsupported in the Top End and are feeling like they are not as important as other jurisdictions. They do not have a head of the Department of Veterans' Affairs like everyone else does.
Why should someone in Sydney have better representation, more support than someone who lives in a remote area of the Northern Territory? Why should that be the case? Obviously it absolutely should not be the case. People who work in the DVA office in the Northern Territory go out into the Kimberley to support people out there. So if you are veteran or an ex-servicemen living remotely in the Northern Territory or in north-west Western Australia, you will not get the same support as in states down south. I think that is shameful. I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that the deputy commissioner for veterans affairs for the Northern Territory is going to be reinstated.
I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on the appropriation bills, which should form the core of any government's program and should really be the foundation of its vision and its purpose. They should be the blueprint for delivering good social and economic policy, for facing up to the social and economic challenges in Australia as a whole and certainly, from my perspective, in Western Australia and in the electorate of Fremantle. Unfortunately across this government, we have not seen that challenge taken up. We have not seen a blueprint like that delivered. The government's first budget really was a ham-fisted attempt at budget repair, inflicting a lot of pain on those who could least afford it. Business groups recoiled, even those who consistently break up the world into lifters and leaners—the most ardent advocates of letting the free market rip and the damage to fall where it lies—thought that that budget was a bit much.
I do not think anyone can remember the budget that followed. It was kind of a 'nothing to see here, folks' budget and the most recent budget stepped out again fairly tentatively, taking its lead from the Labor Party in a lot of areas. So far in this term of government, it has really been a case of trying to clean up and fix up the things that were not done particularly well.
As a representative of Fremantle, the toughest part of the most recent budget is the continuing Commonwealth contribution to the Perth Freight Link project and I am going to talk a bit more about that. In Fremantle Western Australia we definitely need action by government to support economic activity and to support jobs. Of course we hear the jobs and growth mantra every day many times. I am a new member and I have heard it ad infinitum. But there has not been much change since 2013 on that front. There certainly has not been much change in this year since the last budget.
Since 2013, Australia is one of only eight countries in the OECD whose unemployment rate has grown, and of course wages are flat. There are only six countries in the OECD that have reported lower wage rises in the period between 2013 and 2016 than Australia, so we are seventh lowest, which is pretty poor out of 34 countries. In Western Australia we have experienced 20 consecutive months of falling full-time jobs, a streak not seen since the recession of the early 1990s. And since 2013, we have seen an increase in youth unemployment in Western Australia from 8.3 per cent to 11.2 per cent. This year alone, in 2016, youth unemployment in south-west Perth, which includes my electorate, has increased from 9.1 per cent in January to 12.6 per cent in August—so, in six or seven months, a 3.5-percentage-point increase in youth unemployment.
In the face of those difficult conditions, the government has decided to make some changes that will not make it easier for people trying to deal with the circumstances of a tough job market and flat wages. The things that bother me particularly—and I know they bother people in the Fremantle electorate—include cuts to community legal centres and a lack of certainty when it comes to funding under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness.
Western Australia needs leadership and it needs investment in productive infrastructure to support jobs now and to sustain economic activity and jobs in the future. We are not seeing that, I am afraid. In fact, the only prospect of federal investment in infrastructure is through the bizarre and deeply flawed Perth Freight Link. I think people in other parts of the country can imagine what a bitter taste that leaves when there are sensible and well-planned projects that need support and the best that a federal government can do is to put forward the waste, harm and pointlessness of the Perth Freight Link. This week we were told the WA government will rush into signing contracts for stage 1, which is also known as Roe Highway stage 8. I do not think it is an overstatement of any kind to say that that would be one of the most reckless acts of government and one of the most abject failures of governance in Western Australia for decades.
So where did the Perth Freight Link project come from? Nobody really knows. It came from the 2014-15 budget, and the funding has been continued and expanded in every budget since. In fact, it has been increased. I think it started out at $900 million, and it is now at more than $1.2 billion. It came out of nowhere. It took even Western Australia by surprise, which is hard to fathom for a project of that size. It will be the most expensive road in Western Australia's history, and yet, when the first $1 billion of federal funds was announced, the WA Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport was asked for the plans and analysis that underpinned the project, and he said:
The commonwealth has a propensity to make these announcements, as you well know, but the reality is that the Main Roads department and this government will be implementing and designing the Roe 8 extension, and at this stage we have not actually got design plans that are worthy of public scrutiny …
So this is a $2 billion Western Australian project, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport had been taken by surprise. There were no designs in the keeping of the Western Australian government that were fit for public scrutiny. Yet it is a terribly urgent project!
What is its rationale? It is not about transport; it is about privatisation. The current euphemism is 'asset recycling'. It is about facilitating, prompting and motivating the sale of Fremantle Port. Is there really any good reason for the sale of Fremantle Port? No. It is functional and price efficient. We had a presentation in Fremantle a few months ago by the Western Australian Treasurer, Mike Nahan, and he admitted as much. It does its job, and it does it at a very reasonable price to all the users. The only rationale that the WA Treasurer could put forward for the sale of Fremantle Port was that the government did not need to own it. 'It's something we don't need to own,' he said. Yet recent analysis shows what would be common sense: that, if you privatise a monopoly public asset, you get higher prices and you lose control of the impact of that asset on the public realm. There is plenty of evidence in Australia and elsewhere that the contractual terms that require a private owner to invest further in infrastructure over time are not, in reality, enforceable. It will not take trucks off local roads. Modelling by Curtin University shows that within 10 years there will be more trucks on Leach Highway than there are currently because of leakage from any such piece of infrastructure.
So it has no plan. It has no defined benefit or rationale. What about its impacts? Well, it is going to have a substantial, severe and unacceptable environmental impact. The first section of the road, which the WA government intends to rush into signing the contracts for, is called Roe Highway stage 8. It goes through an incredibly important remnant wetland, the Beeliar Wetlands, one of the most beautiful places in Western Australia—certainly in my electorate. It is visited by migratory birds that are protected under our Ramsar treaty commitments. It is also a place with very significant Indigenous heritage, and traditional owners have rejected the road on more than one occasion.
It does not have legitimate environmental approval. In 2006 the EPA said the project involved a scale and degree of damage that meant it was virtually impossible to approve. In the recent process, the EPA approval was found by the WA Supreme Court to be invalid on the basis of the EPA's own policy. The EPA has a very clear and sensible policy which says that you can use environmental offsets to make up for damage caused by a project in some circumstances, but you cannot do it where the environment or the ecosystem that is affected is of very substantial and significant value—and that is clearly the case with the Beeliar Wetlands. The policy could not be clearer—you cannot use environmental offsets for a project that does serious harm to a place of significant environmental value. You cannot cure a project that has that fatal flaw, and the Perth Freight Link is one such project.
The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA was obliged to follow its own policies and yet, on appeal, that has been overturned. It is now on further appeal to the High Court. I cannot understand why the Western Australian government would sign contracts for that project when the High Court may well yet rule that the environmental approval by the EPA is invalid.
There is a further major concern about the Perth Freight Link which does not get talked about that much because the environmental damage is just impossible to contemplate—it takes up so much of the focus, and quite rightly. The further impact that worries me is that the Perth Freight Link is intended to be funded by its sale as a private toll road. That has always been part of the project: the WA government will build it, it will be half funded by the Commonwealth and it will then recoup funds by selling it to a private operator who will run it as a toll road—the first toll road in metropolitan Perth.
What happens when you get privately operated toll roads is that the government has to provide contractual guarantees that it will not introduce competing infrastructure—that is, it will not go and put in other roads or public transport that, effectively, cut the lunch of the private operator. That has happened in Victoria and in New South Wales. These are called concession deeds. People who are not in the immediate vicinity of the Perth Freight Link should just think about this: if that project goes ahead, any future government that wants to invest in roads or in public transport in the south metro area will more than likely be constrained by those concession deeds within the contract of sale of the Perth Freight Link and the contract of sale of that privately operated toll road.
In relation to projects like that, we have to ask ourselves: is there an alternative? Of course, there is. The alternative has been around for more than 20 years—the development of an outer harbour. It has been a matter of bipartisan policy for some time. It is hard to understand why the current Western Australian project has not proceeded with it. It is hard to understand why a responsible federal coalition government would not push the state in that direction. It is a development that the local community in Kwinana wants. They see it as a vitally important economic catalyst. It is a piece of future-proofing and forward-looking development that my state desperately needs, that my electorate needs and, also, that the seat of my colleague the member for Brand needs.
You have on the one hand a terrible, poorly planned project and on the other hand a perfectly good alternative. It really does beggar belief that we have got to this point. It is a tipping point in the life of my community—a once-in-a-generation, landscape-changing decision. We have been taken to the brink of a terrible folly by a government that has not bothered to follow one single piece of good process. It has no election mandate, no cost-benefit analysis in advance and on a comparative basis, no comprehensive freight and transport plan, no traffic modelling and no legitimate environmental approval.
It is simply unacceptable that the government seeks to advance more than $1.2 billion to the Barnett government to support Roe 8 and the Perth Freight Link. It is unacceptable that we should get delivered onto us the most expensive road in WA's history, the first toll road—which, as I have said, is to be privately operated—and a truck freeway that will cut a rare, precious and significant wetland in half for nothing. It is a road whose purpose really is to giftwrap Fremantle Port for private sale. It is outrageous, frankly, for the Barnett government, which has never sought an election mandate for this project, or for the sale of Fremantle port, to rush into contracts in the shadow of a forthcoming election.
This is a tipping point and it is an issue that affects all Western Australians. Do we move into the future with a plan and a vision for a carefully implemented transport and economic framework in metropolitan Perth; do we apply scarce infrastructure funding—more than two thousand million dollars—to projects that have a genuine productive purpose; do we move into the future with a plan that protects what is precious and cannot be repaired or replaced while creating a long-term capacity for both freight and passenger transport, including much-needed public transport; or does an ailing Barnett government, egged on by its federal coalition fellow travellers, throw it all away? Does a new transport minister barely five minutes into the job—the fourth or fifth Western Australian Minister for Transport—sign away our future? I hope not. I hope all Western Australians join this fight. I hope they get in touch with Rethink the Link or Save Beeliar Wetlands. I hope they get in touch with me and other local members. I hope they do not sit back and just watch this happen and do not find themselves saying later, 'I wish I had done something.' This is a turning point and it is not too late to stop Roe 8, although it is getting very close.
I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 and cognate bills. While we are speaking about government spending, I would like to remind the government of the promises and the commitments they made to the people of Paterson, my electorate, during the election campaign. After Labor forced their hand, the Liberals promised $15 million towards raising the road at Testers Hollow, a road that floods repeatedly. In fact, it has been flooding for the last 90 years, which has cut off entire communities and, tragically, seen loss of life in recent years.
It was also promised to the people of Fern Bay and Fullerton Cove in my electorate that a new mobile phone tower would be built under the Mobile Black Spot Program, which we have now been told is fraught with pork-barrelling and great difficulty. I told the House yesterday how residents in Fern Bay, many over 55, are in the absurd situation that they are just 10 kilometres from Newcastle, the seventh largest city in Australia, and yet cannot get reliable mobile phone service. One lady even said that she stands on the sink in her home and puts the phone above the venetian blinds to try and get just one bar of service.
Also, the people of Kurri Kurri in my electorate were promised, by this government, $100,000 to upgrade their sports ground, the home of the mighty Bulldogs and many other important community events. That promise needs to be made good. The government also promised the people of Raymond Terrace and Nelson Bay $120,000 towards security surveillance and equipment under the Safer Communities Fund. Also promised, to Port Stephens residents, was $50,000 towards the Lakeside skate park. I can tell you the young people are very much wanting that and waiting on that to happen.
But, most importantly of all, the Liberal government made a number of promises to the people of Williamtown and surrounds, the communities that, through no fault of their own, have been caught up in the RAAF base contamination scandal—and that is exactly what this has become—whose land and water is poisoned, whose property values have plummeted, whose banks are circling and whose health is potentially compromised.
To these people in Williamtown and surrounds, the Liberals promised: voluntary blood testing; specialised mental health and counselling; a share in $55 million from the existing Defence budget to manage, contain and remediate PFAS at Defence bases; an epidemiological study that will look at potential patterns, causes and health effects in communities exposed to PFAS; dedicated community liaison officers; $3.5 million to connect Williamtown to town water—some of which is underway; to bring the issue of PFAS contamination to COAG so all governments have a consistent approach to managing potentially contaminated sites; and financial assistance for commercial fishers who were unable, until just recently, to work for more than 12 months because of contamination to our waterways—one of which is a Ramsar wetlands area. Meetings with financial institutions and valuers to address residents' concerns that they are being unfairly penalised, and there is no doubt that they are, were also promised.
They also promised: to establish nationally consistent acceptable levels of these chemicals in food, drinking water and recreational water; to establish guidelines to manage the environmental impact of PFAS; and to begin a dialogue with residents who just want to get out once the human health risk assessment is complete—and it was completed on 9 August—and once the review of the enHealth safe drinking guidelines was complete—which was completed on 9 September.
These dates have come and gone, and the dialogue has not begun. I have previously described the speed of Defence's response to Williamtown as 'glacial' and I take this opportunity to remind the Turnbull government that it has made these substantial and important promises to my community—it has made commitments to the Williamtown community and other communities in the Paterson electorate—upon which it must deliver.
I also rise to add my voice to the message that, while Labor will not block supply of the Appropriation Bill 2016-2017, we will work constructively on budget repair that is fair for all Australians and does not harshly affect the millions of hardworking Australians who put their faith in this government to look after their interests; the faith of the people in Paterson.
Labor won significant amendments to the government's harsh proposals, and I would like to reiterate some of these: Labor worked to deliver more savings than in the government's proposed legislation, Labor worked to protect the most vulnerable in our community and Labor worked to reinvest in Australia's clean energy future by saving ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
Labor was also able to ensure affordable access to dental care for children, by protecting Child Dental Benefits Schedule. That is such an important scheme, with many health officials, and also experts around the world and in our country, saying that your health begins with your mouth. Looking after your teeth, and particularly the teeth of children, is something I believe is vitally important. I am proud of our work on that.
Labor's amendments delivered $6.3 billion in savings over four years, more than the government put forward in its original proposals. We promised all Australian people that we would fight to the end for budget repair that is fair for all Australians. We will not, and we never will, support cutting payments to some of the most vulnerable Australian people, people who need the safety net that has been provided in this country over many, many years, by Labor, for those who need it most.
We are pleased that, after hard-fought negotiations, the government saw the light and agreed to fairer ways to save money rather than targeting the poorest sections of our community. The compromise that Labor reached with the government is better, fairer and, quite frankly, more fiscally responsible. It meets the promises that we took to the election. It meets the need to be fiscally responsible but, also, to be true to our values of looking after those who need it most.
We are pleased that the government agreed with us to abolish the baby bonus. It was unacceptable of the government to lecture Australians about the need for spending cuts while indulging the National Party with a new baby bonus. The baby bonus had its time and place but we can no longer afford it, and I am sure that reasonable Australians really do understand that.
Once again, as we always do, Labor went into bat for pensioners, for single parents, for carers, for people with disabilities and for people who have lost their jobs from the coalition's harsh cuts made since 2014. And who will ever forget the Hockey-Abbott budget of 2014? It was truly devastating for so many people.
We saved ARENA by putting forward additional offsetting savings to keep most of their funding, so they can do their critical work. Nowhere is the work of ARENA more critical than in regions like mine, the Hunter region, where we must find a way forward. We must find a way to transition beyond coal to newer, cleaner, more renewable energies. Labor stands committed to a cleaner, greener future, and we will continue to talk with the coalition about how we do transition to a modern, clean and renewable energy approach.
Labor's amendments deliver more savings over four years than the government first proposed, and our measures are fairer. Fairness and fiscal responsibility—that is what Labor stands for. Better, stronger, fairer—that is who we are. We have ensured savings without threatening our gold-plated AAA credit rating, and we have ensured budget repair without hurting our most vulnerable.
But this government can go further—much further. This government could adopt Labor's plans in full, which would deliver more than $8 billion in budget improvements over the forward estimates, and more than $80 billion in budget improvements over the medium term.
Labor has a sensible and fair alternative to the coalition's superannuation package which will deliver $1.5 billion more to the budget. The government can easily resolve its superannuation shambles by working with Labor on a better, fairer proposal. This is what hardworking Australians who have done as governments have implored them to do and saved for their retirement want the government to do.
But, most of all, the government can work with us to make savings to the budget without delivering a tax cut to big business. You see, despite all the hard work by Labor—despite the sensible and fair amendments we were able to achieve—this budget continues to benefit the most wealthy at the expense of the poor. And Labor cannot quietly stand by and watch that happen. This budget continues to give the biggest of businesses a $50 billion tax cut, where most of that and their profits go to overseas owners. It just does not stack up.
This budget continues to give wealthy individuals earning more than $180,000 a cut to their marginal tax rate. The top three per cent of income earners should not be receiving a tax cut from July next year if the bottom 75 per cent will miss out. It is the bottom 75 per cent who need our help, not the top three! How can we ask the poorest of Australians to sit back and watch the rich get richer? Of course we cannot, and Labor will not. In my electorate—where, as I told the House in my first speech yesterday, we have the triple whammy of low incomes, high unemployment and an ageing population—how can we expect people to sit back and watch the wealthiest three per cent of Australians get a windfall when the poorest 75 per cent miss out? Of course we cannot, and we will not.
The Turnbull government is not a government that believes in fairness. Labor does believe in fairness. And the Turnbull government is a government that prioritises the wealthy over the poor. Labor will never do that. While we have said we will not block supply, we will continue to argue for fairness alongside fiscal responsibility. The Australian people demand no less. The people of my electorate, Paterson, in the hardworking Hunter Valley, demand no less.
The Turnbull government continues to include the same unfair measures that the Abbott government tried and failed to get passed in this parliament. The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, continues to try to cut $30 billion from our schools. Schools in Paterson need more funding, not less. Schools throughout Australia need more funding, not less.
The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, continues to tell us that $100,000 university degrees are acceptable. University students in Paterson would not agree. They come from hardworking families who make incredible sacrifices for these young people to achieve their full potential. The people of Paterson want their children to go to university, but at what cost? One hundred thousand dollars? How can that be acceptable? It is not acceptable to Labor.
The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, wants to increase the cost of medicines for everyone by increasing the co-payments as part of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The people of Paterson cannot afford to pay more for essential medicines, and nor should they have to—nor should any Australians. The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, dares to call parents rorters and double dippers through changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The people of Paterson, the parents of Paterson, are not rorters and double dippers; they are hardworking people trying their best to work and raise families and strike some balance between the two. They deserve the respect of the government, not the derision of the government.
The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, wants to cut bulk-billing incentives for diagnostic imaging and pathology services. The people of Paterson cannot afford to pay more for imaging and pathology services that are essential to their health—nor can the people anywhere in Australia. The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, wants to make young jobseekers wait four weeks before receiving income support. What an insult, and at a critical time when people are on the precipice! The people of Paterson probably find this the most offensive of all. In the Hunter we have one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the country. Routinely it is 15 per cent, but it has been over 20 per cent. How are these young people to support themselves without jobs and without government help? Four weeks may not seem like a long time, but it can be a lifetime and it can be a critical time for someone with no income.
The Labor Party will always put people first. We will continue to take the lead on budget repair that is both fiscally responsible and fair. That is what we stand for. That is what Labor stand for. And I implore this government—this government that has so much potential to do good in our country—to do that good rather than trying to choke those who are truly in need while supporting those who, potentially, do not need the same sort of support.
The residents of the Hawkesbury do not generally ask for a lot from their governments. They are an independent, resourceful people, many descendant from the early settlers who came up the Hawkesbury River in the late 1790s and early 1800s. In 1874, the Windsor Bridge was built to allow easier passage across what was then and still is a busy thoroughfare to the bustling heart of Windsor and Thompson Square, itself a Georgian square unmatched by any other in the settlement. Both Windsor Bridge and Thompson Square still stand, but not for long if the New South Wales government has its way and the Turnbull government fails to step up to save colonial heritage and fund an alternative.
If anyone should care about this, it is our Prime Minister, who is a direct descendant of John Turnbull, one of the first Scottish born free settlers in New South Wales. John Turnbull established Ebenezer Church in the Hawkesbury, which still stands as the oldest church building in Australia. In fact, I attended a wonderful fundraising fete there only a couple of weekends ago. So the Prime Minister, whose ancestors will have travelled the route from Windsor to Ebenezer before and after the bridge was built, should care as much, if not more, than the thousands of locals who want to see this bridge and Thompson Square preserved. I am told the Prime Minister is very proud of his heritage, but he must remember that a single building always sits in the context of the towns around it; destroy them and history is lost.
The first step in protecting this heritage is one of those decisions that, in fact, would cost no money. What is needed is a decision to do an emergency heritage listing. The New South Wales government are ignoring their own heritage department advice to proceed with the replacement bridge at Windsor. They are also ignoring the protests of local community members, called CAWBies. The CAWBies have occupied the square in pairs for 24 hours a day for more than 1,000 days—and let me tell you: it gets very cold in Windsor at three o'clock on a Sunday morning in the middle of winter. We believe it is the longest ever heritage protest that has been held in Australia, and it continues to this day.
At a national level, research done during the last three years has identified the real story of this place—not just its Georgian buildings that could be straight out of a Jane Austin novel, but the fact that it is the place of the birth of a fair go, where Governor Lachlan Macquarie, rather than naming this square after a lord or a king, chose a reformed convict, Andrew Thompson, as its namesake. It was symbolic of Macquarie's view that redemption was possible, that a convict could be given a second chance in Australia and make good and that your birthright did not dictate your ability to rise in society through hard work—all these values that helped shape Australia and make it the sort of place that it is today. This is a story worth preserving, and the Minister for the Environment could do it today, as we would have done were we in office. I should also note that only this week Hawkesbury council, newly elected with a new set of councillors, have also moved that they will request the minister to do national listing for Thompson Square.
Not only are the Liberal state government willing to destroy an historic bridge that represents a major engineering project in the state for its time and a square, which is the oldest remaining public square in the country—older than Port Arthur—but they are willing to do it for no traffic improvement. The project replaces a two-lane bridge with a two-lane bridge. Is it because the lanes are not wide enough? Well, they are three metres wide—the same as those on Anzac Bridge in Sydney and wider than some of the lanes on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. So why invest what is now estimated at up to $100 million in something that destroys heritage and provides no tangible improvement to traffic? You would have to ask why. There is no answer.
Labor thinks there is a better way: save the square and identify and build a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River. That would provide a real traffic solution for those who are tired of spending 40 or 50 minutes every morning crossing two very crowded historic bridges across the Hawkesbury. That is why we promised $500,000 to do a comprehensive study of local traffic, building on the work that has been done in recent years. That was one of our key election commitments—unfortunately not matched by the government.
Let's remember that the only people who have allocated funds to be used on roads in the Hawkesbury in memory are federal Labor. In 2010, $20 million was set aside for improvements to North Richmond Bridge, with $2 million for a study into the short- and long-term options and the remaining $18 million being used towards the work, which, six years on, is only just happening now—and not in full because there appears there is going to be new funding yet to meet the total $28 million bill for it. If it had been left to the Liberals to deliver these improvements, they would never have happened.
Six years on, though, they do not go far enough. Yet there is no genuine desire or action by the Liberals to get this essential third crossing happening, to get trucks out of our towns and to get through traffic off our roads so that locals can go where they need to in a reasonable time. When you have driven an hour and a half from the city after work in the afternoon, the last thing you want is for the last part of the drive, what should be a five-minute journey, to take you 25 or 50 minutes. As the suburban outskirts of Sydney edge closer to the still distinctive Macquarie towns, the rich history of the area—the buildings, the bridges, the spaces—become increasingly important to the community's sense of identity. A third crossing would protect that but allow workers, families and tradespeople of the Hawkesbury to have a 21st century road experience.
I am also disappointed not to see in this appropriation bill additional funding for Hawkesbury Hospital. Hawkesbury Hospital is a really key piece of infrastructure in our community. As the smaller sister to Nepean Hospital, Hawkesbury has long been overlooked, but it serves more than 65,000 people in an area which has more growth to come. There are many things needed at Hawkesbury Hospital, which provides public and private services to our community, and I look forward to working with St John of God, who operate it, to deliver improvements over many years. One of the things needed is a new operating theatre, which Labor committed $5 million towards at the last election.
This time last year there were more than 800 people waiting for elective surgery at the hospital. Older patients were waiting for things like orthopaedic and eye surgery and children were waiting for ear, nose and throat surgery. Doctors tell me that there is simply not enough space for them to do all the operations that they would otherwise have the capacity to do. More operating beds would mean more work for staff and, as the hospital is a key employer in the area, any investment would be a good investment.
The Hawkesbury is a region where, if they can, people want to work near home. Train services are not great, roads are congested as you head towards Sydney and commuting times are long. The more jobs that we can have locally the better it will be for our major centres of Windsor and Richmond. Like cuts to education, which hit our schools and staff numbers hard, cuts to health hit our local nurses and our hospital staff. It is well known that Nepean, which is under enormous pressure due to federal funding cuts, is not coping and that staff there are facing real challenges. It has the worst waiting times in the state. Our local health district is crying out for funding. Hawkesbury hospital could play a role here. This government should be investing in health spending if they want to create jobs and Hawkesbury hospital would be a great place to start.
The Hawkesbury is a very diverse area and one of the things that it thrives on is the local small businesses. South Windsor shops are a sometimes thriving or sometimes quieter part of the world, depending on which day of the week you are there. They are in desperate need of a little bit of support. South Windsor is the heart of the older part of the wider Windsor community. It is a little strip of shops. We have our newsagent, we have our post office, we have takeaways, we have beauty shops and, fortunately, we have a wonderful florist. Jo Dunstan runs Angels Florist and she has spearheaded a campaign to have CCTV for South Windsor shops. She has been asking for years, we have run petitions and we have pleaded with council to prioritise South Windsor. They need help to deter graffiti, antisocial behaviour and, occasionally, serious crime. I am very pleased to say that, during the election, the other side finally saw the light and recognised that our commitment to fund CCTV for South Windsor is an essential piece of infrastructure. This was a bipartisan commitment. I am also very pleased to say that the funding is already finding its way to Hawkesbury City Council, which means that this community is finally going to have, after years of work, the sort of boost that small businesses need not just to stay safe and strong but also to grow. I have also spoken to a lot of pensioners in South Windsor who are very grateful that soon, we hope, there will be an extra layer of security. They tell me that they feel more vulnerable on the streets as they age, so having CCTV cameras will give them more reason to go out and connect with people and walk around South Windsor shops. That is the sort of commitment that we need to be seeing. I am very pleased that one of my election commitments is able to be delivered so promptly.
There is another election commitment that was made by the government, and I look forward to a similar speedy delivery of $300,000 funding for roads for the Hawkesbury District Agricultural Association. The Hawksbury show is one of the highlights of the social, agricultural and economic calendar of the Hawkesbury. Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, came to the Hawkesbury show with me this year. The problem for the Hawkesbury agricultural people is that they have had no investment from government over many years. The amount of $300,000, which we are told will be arriving shortly, will allow them to upgrade roads and make it a fantastic experience for the many people who come from all over, not just from Sydney but from outside Sydney to the show. In fact, this is the largest show outside the Sydney Royal Easter Show, so I would encourage you to come for a visit next year.
The Hawksbury sits in an area that has a very strong and important equine industry. We breed horses in the Hawkesbury and we race horses in the Hawkesbury. The connections to agriculture still run very deep. I met a man the other night who actually wins the tapestry prize at the Hawkesbury show every year. So locals very proudly display their wares at the show. Something like $300,000, it is not a large amount, will make such a difference for this community. As one of the many people who sets up a stall at the Hawkesbury show every year, I look forward to seeing those roads down and tarred in time for next year's show.
There are many other things we would have liked to have seen in the appropriation bills 2016-17, and many I will speak about at more length, but I think the bottom line for the Hawkesbury is that it does not make unrealistic demands on government. Certainly the commitments we made in the Hawkesbury were very reasonable. These are things that will improve people's quality of life. They will boost productivity and employment. They will improve community health, and one of those examples is a $50,000 commitment that we think needs to be delivered to the Women's Cottage. This Women's Cottage provides domestic violence counselling support. It is run by women for women. It is one of those organisations that runs on the smell of an oily rag. How they manage to do so much with so little is an extraordinary feat, and what they need are slightly better premises in which to operate. I hope we see that money coming through. That is the sort of improvement to community life and health that our commitments will bring that we would like to see out of these bills. I will be working to make sure those commitments are delivered by this government.
I am very pleased to join the debate on the appropriation bills 2016-17 and to particularly emphasise the issues in my electorate of Jagajaga that we would like to see given priority by this government. However, I want to start by thanking the people of Jagajaga for, once again, giving me the opportunity to represent them here in the House of Representatives. In March this year, I celebrated 20 years in the House of Representatives and I have never forgotten that it is, of course, my first duty, like it is every member's first duty, to represent the people of my electorate. I want to take this chance to say a very, very big thank you to all the volunteers who helped me. I have listened to many of the first speeches in the parliament over the last couple of months and it is wonderful to hear the thanks given to the volunteers. But even in one's eighth election, you still need lots of volunteers and I want to say a huge thank you to all of those who helped me.
I cannot thank them all, but I do want to name a few. It was a very, very long and cold winter campaign in Melbourne, so to all of you a huge thanks: Di Douglass, David and Loretta Pound, James Gaffey, Duncan Willis, Liz and Adriana Georgiou, Carol Lim Bradish, Sandra Macneil, Jim Bogle, Keith Staples, Wendy Morris, Judy Edwards, Isobel Creed, Terry Mooney, David and Barbara Mackenzie, Helen Morrison, Jason Garufi, La Trobe University ALP club and many volunteers from the Australian Services Union. I thank all of you very, very much, especially for everything you did at the train stations early in the morning in the dark, doorknocking in the afternoon and with the many, many street stalls. I also want to say a big thank you to my personal staff led by Antony Kenney and Alistair Webster. My very, very sincere thanks to each and every one of you.
It would no surprise to anyone in the parliament, especially on our side of politics, that Medicare was the biggest issue for us in our area. Everywhere I went, whether it was Eltham in the north of the electorate or Eaglemont, Heidelberg West or Watsonia, people were concerned about the future of Medicare. Many people, families and older people, are especially concerned about the cost pharmaceuticals and the cost of going to the doctor. One doctor in particular I want to make mention of today is an extraordinary woman in Heidelberg West, Dr Francis. The need for bulk-billing in Heidelberg West is acute. Dr Francis, a single mother of three, took out a second mortgage on her own home so that her practice can continue to bulk-bill following the Turnbull government's decision to freeze the Medicare rebate and to continue to freeze that rebate for some years to come. As GPs in my area know—and GPs around the country are aware—Labor made the commitment to unfreeze these rebates. In this debate, I call on the government to unfreeze the rebates so we do not see a reduction in bulk-billing, particularly in areas like Heidelberg West, which are so needy.
The centrepiece of our health system in our area is the Austin Hospital and Mercy Hospital for Women in Heidelberg. These are world-class hospitals that deliver outstanding health services not just to people in Melbourne but also to people in many parts of Australia. I want to thank the long-term CEO of Austin Health, Brendan Murphy, for his outstanding leadership over the last decade. I want to wish him well: he has just been appointed as the Chief Medical Officer here in Canberra. It is a great addition for the Public Service in Canberra. Hospitals are, of course, at the heart of Medicare. Sadly, since the Liberals came into office in 2013, we have seen billions of dollars taken from our public hospital systems. There is no doubt that at our hospitals we are seeing the results of people having to wait longer to get into the emergency department—a very, very busy emergency department—and to wait for elective surgery. Labor went into the election promising to improve funding for our public hospitals so that we would see reductions in waiting times. I very much hope that, when we are debating the appropriation bills next year, we will see this government improve public hospital funding.
Jagajaga is one of the most well-educated electorates in the country, and parents certainly want to make sure their children get the best education. Parents know that education is a prerequisite to a good job. That is why Labor campaigned so hard for the Gonski reforms. In my electorate alone, that would have meant an extra $24 million if Labor had been elected. Sadly, we see this government deaf to the aspirations of parents, such as those in my electorate, who really want to make sure that their children get the best. I really cannot understand how it can be that this conservative government thinks that investing in our children's education is not worth it. I would say to the Minister for Education and Training: come to Greensborough College or Bundoora Secondary College and say to the parents, teachers and students of those schools that you want to give them less. I think they will demonstrate to you how that Gonski money is being well used now and would be well used in the future.
We also have an outstanding TAFE in the electorate, Melbourne Polytechnic, providing terrific education and training not just to traditional apprentices but also to those who have left school early for whatever reason. Melbourne Polytechnic is doing an outstanding job. I want to reassure them that Labor will continue to stand-up for TAFEs around the country getting adequate support.
Another big issue in my electorate is traffic congestion. It is a huge issue, particularly for commuters using Rosanna Road, Greensborough Highway, Lower Plenty Road, Fitzsimons Lane, and, of course, it is having a very serious impact on people's quality of life. Far too much time is lost in the daily commute. I made a commitment—and I am pleased to say it was a bipartisan commitment—to allocate $5 million towards an options study for the North East Link road project. Since the election I have written to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport seeking that this commitment be met. The government made the same commitment that we did. They should uphold the promise and provide the $5 million so that the options study for the North East Link road project can be pursued. I am sorry to say that at this stage we still have not got a response.
Infrastructure Victoria is of course an independent authority. It has recently released a draft report on the future infrastructure needs, including in our area of Melbourne, and building the North East Link is near the top of the list. It is recommending that the road be constructed over the next 10 to 15 years. This is clearly a long-term option, so I call on the minister again to release the money to the Victorian government to make sure that the appropriate studies can be done as quickly as possible.
Of course we do understand how important short- and medium-term options are and that is why I am very pleased that the state Labor government is pursuing the Bolton Street upgrade in Eltham; the Rosanna Road truck curfew, which certainly has reduced noise at night; and the removal of the level crossing on Lower Plenty Road in Rosanna. They are also going to get a brand-new train station at Rosanna. At last—it is extraordinary how long this has taken, given the age of the Hurstbridge line—the section between Heidelberg and Rosanna is going to be duplicated. I really do congratulate the Andrews Labor government in Victoria for allocating the $140 million to make sure that that happens and to also get the planning done for the further duplication of the Hurstbridge line between Greensborough and Eltham. That will be a very positive move.
We made a number of commitments to the residents in Melbourne's north-east to improve sport and sporting clubs. Like many communities right around the country, we all understand that local sport is really what brings people together. We committed $750,000 for a much-needed upgrade to the Research Park Pavilion. We added to that $500,000 to upgrade the facilities at Eltham North Reserve. That would help the soccer club and the cricket club and be a hub for the Scouts and U3A. There was $500,000 towards the upgrade of the Heidelberg United Football Club ground at Olympic Park. That is a fantastic facility that we would love to see improved. I look forward to working with them. Another great local club, the Eltham Football Club, needs $200,000 to upgrade the electricity supply at Eltham Central Park. We have committed to this. This is the home of the footy club and the cricket club. We certainly want to make sure that we continue to work with the local councils, the state government and the federal government to see each of these clubs improve.
Finally I want to make reference to something very important that is taking place in Eltham right now. I have spoken over many years about the importance of active citizenship where we can see a more secure and cohesive society as a result of people coming together to live in our strong communities. Last week we joined a broad coalition of community groups and local residents in support of the Eltham refugee project. It is a project being managed by St Vincent's Health and CatholicCare that will see 120 Syrian refugees settled in Eltham. I am pleased that the federal government is facilitating bringing these people to our country. The refugees will be a mix of single women, single mothers with children, and couples with one child. The accommodation to be used by the refugees, I want to emphasise, was empty and unused and had fallen into disrepair. No aged-care residents will be displaced and, after two years and as a result of St Vincent's Care upgrading the units, after the Syrian refugees have been resettled elsewhere this accommodation will be available for seniors.
I want to thank St Vincent's Care and CatholicCare for the support that they are going to be giving to these Syrian refugees but, most particularly, I want to say how proud I am of the way in which the people of Eltham are welcoming these refugees into this community. Eltham is a prosperous and compassionate community, and I am very confident that the local community will welcome our newest Australians in the way that only they know how. It is a very special time for them.
To conclude, in the few minutes I have left I want to emphasise that during this period in the parliament I will continue to pursue something that is very close to my heart—that is, to shine a spotlight on inequality in our country and how we can address it. So much more needs to be done to make sure that Australia really is the place of the fair go, and I will do everything in my power to make that the case.
I rise to speak to the appropriation bills, and I would specifically like to draw attention to the spending commitments made by the government in the course of the recent federal election campaign. Just before I do that, I also take this opportunity to once again thank the people of the federal electorate of Perth for putting their confidence in me in the July 2016 election to be their newly-elected representative.
The spending commitments made by the government in the course of the federal campaign that was held over the long, cold, dark and stormy months of June and July 2016 number eight in total. They total just over $1.3 million and, broadly speaking, can be divided into three categories. The first category of spending commitments can be conveniently described as investment within local community groups. I will shortly expand on exactly what the subcategories of the local community group investment comprised. The second category of spending commitments is more broadly described as safety and security commitments; namely, commitments to install CCTV equipment around various parts of our local community in the federal seat of Perth. The third category of commitments is those that I might more broadly describe as 'sugar cloud' commitments—that is, those where there was some sentiment and expression of interest made, but no firm solution and certainly no firm financial commitment that went towards properly addressing a significant issue that affects the very heart of the federal seat of Perth. This is within the local community at Bayswater, which is something I have previously spoken to in this place.
In relation to the first category—that is, the local community category of the federal election commitments—the first commitment made by my opponent during that time was for $750,000 to the Bayswater Tennis Club. The Bayswater Tennis Club is a local community of active tennis players. The club has been active in the area for many years—decades, in fact. As a matter of fact, I personally have very fond memories of the Bayswater Tennis Club, which provided me with one of my first sources of income as I was putting myself through university. This was in the context of coaching juniors in tennis at the Bayswater Tennis Club. Whilst it is certainly an important aspect of community investment and engagement, it is one which I am particularly keen to hold the government to account in the context of its election commitment.
The next election commitment that we saw rolled out in the course of the campaign was one which is in very close physical proximity to the Bayswater Tennis Club—and it certainly does not leave anyone guessing as to where perhaps the battleground of the federal election campaign was fought—and that related to a commitment of $100,000 to the Bayswater City Soccer Club. There is no doubt that the Bayswater City Soccer Club is certainly a nerve centre of community engagement, and investment made to improving those facilities is something that is to be encouraged. But what is more important is that the government delivers on its promise for the Bayswater City Soccer Club and ensure that those funds are directed to the club so that it can undertake much needed works to improve the grounds and the viewing venue. That is again very much only the start of the story and does not necessarily scratch the surface in terms of the long-term infrastructure planning that is required to ensure that this vital sporting hub truly unleashes its potential in engaging and drawing in a community of children and parents who are constantly looking for the community and family engagement that the Bayswater City Soccer Club has been doing such a good job of providing over the years. It has the potential to provide an even richer part of the fabric and tapestry of the Bayswater community so it is essential that the government honours its commitment of that $100,000.
The third commitment is for $20,000 to the Bayswater street roller hockey club, a fantastic up-and-coming part of our local community. Again, it is a stone's throw from the previous two community groups that I just mentioned. Not only does it provide a different type of community activity—that is, roller hockey—but I can tell you by personal experience the members do a fantastic hamburger on Friday nights. It is a terrific environment where mums, dads and kids are drawn together, where kids can go and play, the mums and dads can actually each other's company and the company of their friends and extended family members all the time knowing that their homes are only just around the corner. The $20,000 is essential to make sure that we strike the balance between community engagement and ensuring that the neighbours, who have an added level of activity around their place now that they otherwise did not have, are not unnecessarily burdened by the noise effects that come from this fantastic new and burgeoning sport, which in my view is to be encouraged.
In addition to the commitments that really are four corners of a suburban block in the heart of Bayswater, there are two investments that are essential the government is held to account for in delivering. One is a $4,000 renovation to the cenotaph in Mount Lawley, an important but modest community investment. And the other, which is also very close to home, is a $50,000 beautification upgrade to Beaufort Street in Inglewood. That has probably become more important more now than ever having regards to the fact that my electorate office, which is on Beaufort Street in Inglewood, now has adorned a six-foot image of my head on about three of the different windows, so much so that it almost caused me to have a traffic accident driving down Beaufort Street. It is very important that there are beautification measures to ensure that it does not catch any other unsuspecting constituents by surprise. It is certainly essential to make sure there is sufficient beautification that goes into Beaufort Street, hopefully, to avert that potential disaster. They are the community upgrades I have explained and which I am keen to ensure that the government remains committed to delivering in my local community.
Safety and security commitments can be grouped into three categories. The first category is a $100,000 commitment for CCTV cameras to the northern end of my electorate, in Bassendean for the Jubilee Reserve and Mary Crescent Reserve CCTV security cameras.
Just parking that for one minute, I think it is important to note that CCTV certainly has a place, and I do not think anyone in this chamber would dispute that. But it is appropriate at this point to pay special significance and acknowledgement to the active local residents who did not just rely upon opportunities for funding commitments in the course of the federal campaign in order to ensure that their local communities were made safe.
The problem with the Jubilee Park area is that it has long been realised that there is a significant drug problem both in relation to a number of homes being used as points upon which drugs are allegedly sold; but even more distressing and potentially harmful to our juniors is that local parts of the Jubilee Park were being used for drug use. So much so, that when I went up there to meet with residents to discuss their concerns, it did not take long—a matter of minutes—before I and Dave Kelly, the state member for Bassendean, found dozens and dozens of used syringes carelessly discarded just in the nearby bushes. This was potentially a terrible accident waiting to happen for any young kids who might be in the area, which includes a junior cricket club.
So, again, it is appropriate to acknowledge the local members of the community who formed what was called, in a very vibrant acronym, JAG—the Jubilee Action Group—which was designed to try and actually do something about this rampant drug use. In particular, Carol Tharme, Justin Murray, Jack Taylor and Neera Mukherjee should be acknowledged for the important community activism that they displayed, which I am pleased to say has now resulted in a significant reduction of both drug use and community nuisance in the area.
The other two CCTV commitments that it is essential the government be held to account on relate to $98,000 for CCTV security vision in and around the Perth CBD and $150,000 for CCTV footage in and around the Noranda shopping and sporting centre.
But in the time that I have left I would like to bring to the attention of the chamber something that I describe as the 'sugar cloud' commitment made by the government in the course of the recent federal election campaign—the commitment that relates to the Bayswater train station.
In the course of the campaign it was very, very clear that, again, a beating, vital heart of the electorate—that is, the town of Bayswater and the precinct of Bayswater—is currently faced with a situation where the train line runs straight through the town centre, resulting in an underpass or a subway which is frequently blocked by traffic. As a matter of fact, I recall seeing a photograph of the former member for Cowan's campaign truck wedged under the subway, which was unfortunate for two reasons: firstly, the damage done to the truck, of course; but, secondly, it was so far out of its patch. But we will leave that for another day. What it has created is a divided town. It is very clear that we have a once-in-a-lifetime infrastructure opportunity here.
To put it in context: the airport to Forestville rail line is going to be sunk, by way of a tunnelling exercise, to ensure the most efficient way to deliver passengers from the airport through to Forestville, and the capital expenditure for this has already been approved and paid for. What we have, in the context of that significant capital investment and infrastructure spend, is an opportunity to simply use what is already there to continue the tunnelling process. This would see us sink the rail line that currently runs through the top of the town of Bayswater and give us a chance of creating a seamless transition and unlocking the potential of a town centre with a high street that was once glorious and once prominent but is now struggling.
This could then see us explore really interesting infrastructure opportunities, like value capture, and the extent to which we could get value for our infrastructure spend over the ground where the train now runs that could potentially run through an underground station. It is very clear that we have a moment in time to address this. My opponent and the government at the time made lots of sympathetic noises—some ums, some ahs, some moans, some scratching of the head—but ultimately did nothing. Compare that with the commitment made by the Labor Party in the course of that campaign, which was to actually seize the moment and do something about it. So much so, that they called for and actually put their money where their mouth is.
The Labor Party, in the course of my campaign, announced a $1 million spend on making sure the appropriate structural plan was created which saw us (a) ascertain a true assessment of how much it was going to cost to seize this opportunity, (b) work out to what extent we could get traffic flows around the area going again and (c) work out how we could revitalise that town centre, which is only a few kilometres from the CBD, to make sure it becomes a place where mums and dads and kids and small business can all thrive and live together, creating a unique oasis in a once-proud town that people actually want to come to. We want to create the infill on a transport line and ensure that, as our cities grow and expand, we are making the most use of that land and unlocking the potential of land and towns that are close to the city. Compare and contrast the two parties in the context of their true commitment to infrastructure. The Labor Party are committing to a $1 million spend to make sure that we get this right, and the coalition are doing absolutely nothing in relation to that other than making sympathetic noises but going nowhere.
I conclude by making it very clear to my constituents that I will continue to hold the government to account every hour of every day until the eight commitments that I have just outlined are delivered to the community. I will not rest until we do so and I will not rest until such time as we make sure we are properly fulfilling our potential and giving our community what they deserve and not just meaningless promises.
It is with great pleasure that I rise here today to talk about the 2016 budget and what it means to my community in the electorate of Braddon. It seems that, in bringing together the 2016 budget, the coalition made the decision that led to the Tasmanian community saying, 'Adios, amigos,' to three former Liberal members, in Bass, Braddon and Lyons. In so many areas, the coalition have neglected Tasmanians, and they demonstrated in their budget just how out of touch they are with the needs of our communities and regional Tasmania. Whether it is in the critical areas of health care, education or job-creating infrastructure, the coalition just do not seem to get it. When you compare the priorities of the coalition to those of Labor, it is clear why their agenda was overwhelmingly rejected by Tasmanians.
The centrepiece of the coalition's budget was a $50 billion tax cut for big business and the banks—based on the false premise of trickle-down economics, which we all know just does not work—and tax cuts for those on higher incomes. While the coalition is happy to give these tax cuts of $16,715 to those on higher incomes, the average person in Braddon receives zero. What the coalition does not seem to understand or want to know is that the median income for a wage or salary earner in my neck of the words, according to the latest figures from the ABS, is just $39,887 per annum.
When it comes to funding health care, once again the coalition fails to understand Braddon and Tasmania. Braddon has some of the worst health indicators in the nation. Combined with an ageing population and a disproportionate amount of people receiving a Commonwealth benefit, it becomes clearer why people in Braddon are worried about the cost of health. My electorate has a high degree of chronic disease and poor health outcomes, higher preventable hospitalisations and higher all-cause cancer and all-cause mortality rates compared to the state average. But the ability for people in my electorate to pay more for health care is of concern, and any pressure they face to pay more will only add to poor health indicators for my community.
The national average per electorate of people receiving the age pension is 16.36 per cent. In Tasmania that average is 18.81 per cent of the five electorates. In my electorate the percentage receiving the age pension is 20.67 per cent. The national average per electorate of people in receipt of a Health Care Card is 7.98 per cent. In Tasmania that figure is 10.29 per cent, and in my electorate of Braddon the figure is just below that, at 10.08 per cent. In the adjoining electorate of Lyons it is 10.55 per cent and in the electorate of Bass the figure is 11.89 per cent. So it is little wonder that across all three electorates a universal health care system that does not hit the back pockets of people in our communities is a really high priority. It is a message that the self-styled three amigos failed completely to understand.
If the coalition wanted to look further to understand why health is so important to Tasmanians and the people of Braddon, perhaps they could look at the figures provided by the ABS relating to the number in receipt of a pensioner concession card. These people are not wealthy by any means. Their circumstances are such that they rely on Commonwealth support just to get by. The national average is: 26.59 per cent of each electorate receives a pension concession card. The Tasmanian average is 33.7 per cent. In Braddon the figure is 38.19 per cent. Given the low wage, poor health outcomes and reliance on Commonwealth support, you would think that the coalition would respond in a positive way—but, no. Tasmanian community members shook their heads in amazement when figures obtained from the Parliamentary Budget Office revealed that Tasmanian hospitals will suffer a $1.151 billion cut over the next 10 years. With the health challenges the community faces in my electorate of Braddon, the cut is $153 million over that term. Our local hospitals just cannot afford it.
Then there is the cruel attack on Medicare, with a GP tax being extended for another two years. The coalition wrongly labelled the campaign 'Medi-scare'. But it was not Labor's campaign that scared the community. When you are living on a low income, struggling to put food on the table with a sick member of your family and facing increased costs to see the doctor, you are very scared. Making the sickest and poorest pay more to see a doctor is not fair. I am proud of being part of the Labor campaign that put health care as a payment issue for the community.
But there is more. It seems that the coalition just cannot get enough of slugging those living in regional communities. The coalition cuts to the health Flexible Funds have and will continue to hit Braddon hard. The fund that is delivered by what is known as TAZREACH has been cut from $3.9 million to $1.4 million. On the west coast of Tasmania, where the community has been struggling terribly economically and socially, the TAZREACH cut has had severe impacts. I would like to take a moment to use some quotes from local mayor Phil Vickers on what these cuts mean to his community. On 28 June this year he said:
The loss of these services places more stress on unwell residents and will also place more pressure on these services in other regions as West Coasters will now have to travel to attend appointments.
There is a concern that people will stop seeking help for their medical problems knowing they cannot access assistance locally. You need to understand that the west coast of Tasmania is an isolated community. It is not a place where you can have quick access to any service; it takes many hours to travel anywhere. In winter, sometimes the roads are iced over or snowed over.
It is not just health cuts that cause my electorate so much concern. Braddon, along with the rest of Tasmania, has low educational attainment. The proportion of our community who complete year 12 or gain a tertiary qualification is one of the lowest in Australia. So what is the coalition's answer to this issue? They defund education by refusing to invest in years five and six of Gonski. Implementing the Gonski reforms on time and in full means that students outside of the cities will have the same opportunities to learn the skills they need to succeed. I heard some of our opponents, particularly in Tasmania, say during the campaign that we cannot afford Gonski. If you cannot afford to invest in a proven model of education funding that puts the child first and is based on need—which is Gonski—then you should not be in government. In a community with high unemployment and, in particular, high youth unemployment, you would think the coalition would also be prepared to invest in job-creating and economy-growing infrastructure. The hollow words of 'jobs and growth' were nowhere more hollow than in Tasmania—a state with high unemployment and a slow economy.
In March this year the Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania and the Cradle Coast Authority, which represents the nine councils of the north-west coastal region, launched the $160 million Cradle Mountain master plan. Tasmania is experiencing a tourism boom, as international and national visitors seek to enjoy some of the best nature-based experiences combined with some of the most amazing food and wine. But, unfortunately for Cradle Mountain and for northern and north-west Tasmania, this growth is disproportionately favouring southern Tasmania in what is known as the 'MONA effect'—that is, the Museum of Old and New Art in Hobart, which is very popular with visitors. The issue at Cradle Mountain is its infrastructure, which has not kept pace with the demands for a high-quality experience. Today people are required to queue for buses, have limited shelter from the elements at Dove Lake and are not receiving the world-class experience they expect. For Cradle Mountain to continue to hold its place as one of Australia's iconic destinations, change is needed.
The master plan seeks to renew Cradle Mountain as Tasmania's iconic destination. The proponents of the master plan had it subjected to some of the most rigorous analysis. Deloitte Access Economics research forecasts that the Cradle Mountain redevelopment would have an economic benefit to the Cradle Coast region of up to $29 million per year, based on attracting 59,000 more visitors and translating into 102,000 more visitor nights. Deloitte found the project would create almost 150 full-time jobs in construction and more than 110 full-time jobs in operation—in a region that particularly needs sustainable jobs. Market testing and a funding model have been completed, and planning and infrastructure work has been assessed. Such is the scope of the work undertaken that private investors have committed to build a new hotel.
There was some anticipation in the lead-up to the federal budget that the master plan would receive support. As far back as September last year the Tasmanian government—a Liberal government—was holding discussions with the federal coalition. No budget announcement was forthcoming. The project did receive strong support from the Tasmanian Liberal government, who committed $15 million in their May budget. I am so proud to say federal Labor committed $15 million to this project, with a further undertaking to work with the proponents as the project developed. This provided confidence to private investors that this project had the backing of all levels of government and the Tasmanian community.
So how did the coalition ultimately respond? On 23 June former tourism minister Senator Colbeck—a senator from, and who lived in, my home town, who knows the area very well and the proponents as well—announced the coalition would support this $160 million project with a paltry $1 million to fund a business case, despite all the work previously undertaken. I have to say that the coalition was led kicking and screaming to make any announcement on tourism funding or support for Tasmania. All they announced was a $5 million package. Quite rightly the response from Tasmania's tourism industry and wider community was scathing. It could best be summed up by a tweet from Tourism Industry Council CEO Luke Martin, who said he hadn't been so underwhelmed since Hangover Part IIIandalso described it as a disappointing and lightweight commitment.
The coalition's failures in tourism infrastructure in Braddon also extend to our main arterial roads. The Bass Highway runs from Marrawah, all the way through Braddon to Latrobe, continuing through Lyons and finishing in Launceston in the electorate of Bass. Under the coalition's last three budgets not a single cent has been allocated to any work on the Bass Highway in Braddon. From Burnie to Launceston it is classified as part of the national highway. This part of the highway carries the largest volume of freight of any road in Tasmania. At Devonport the road is the vehicle gateway for Tasmania's tourism industry for those arriving on the Spirit of Tasmania. West of Burnie to Marrawah the road has other classifications, but over the years it has seen a massive increase in freight volume.
I launched a community petition earlier this year in Circular Head, highlighting the state of the road, especially from Smithton to Marrawah. In a matter of weeks the petition gathered overwhelming community support. It was clear that this issue was of high importance to the people of this area. For Labor's part, and with the support of the shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, Anthony Albanese, I was able to secure a funding commitment to invest in this part of the highway. I was hoping the strength of the petition and the voices of the community would jar the coalition into action. Sadly, I was mistaken.
The campaign to fix this section of road continues in Circular Head. Local bus operator, Kimbra Wells, from Wells Wagons, and the Circular Head community road safety committee have been proactive in allowing people to understand the dangers of travelling on this section of road and in giving people a chance to experience what is, at times, a treacherous journey for school kids on the buses. The road is narrow. There has been significant increases in heavy vehicles—milk tankers and log trucks—as well as tourist drivers who may not be familiar with the challenges of this part of the road. Not only that, the road requires significant re-engineering at the Brittons Swamp section.
I want to put on the record my thanks to Kimbra and the committee for continuing to raise this important issue. At Latrobe, on the highway local service station proprietor Ian 'Daggy' Hartnett and his wife, Trudy, gathered over 2,000 signatures on a petition calling for dangerous intersections to be fixed. This is a single lane highway that has the largest volume of traffic, with trucks and cars turning into their petrol station and leaving other vehicles nowhere to go. The near misses, the accidents—it is a scary piece of road.
I am pleased federal Labor was able to respond through shadow minister Albanese and allocate funding for the necessary planning works. For reasons best known to them, the coalition also ignored this section of road. I congratulate Daggy and Trudy for their work and want to assure them that Labor will continue the fight on their behalf. So it is little a wonder the people of Tasmania and Braddon rejected the coalition at the 2 July election. There is no doubt the coalition's budget decisions were at the core of this rejection, along with the failure of the so-called 'amigos' to listen to their communities. It was a budget that contained tax cuts to millionaires and big business, but it was a budget that failed the sick, elderly, vulnerable families, our children and job-creating infrastructure.
I rise to speak to the appropriations bills 2016-17. It really is an opportunity to highlight a raft of issues in the government's budget measures that are of incredible importance to not only my constituency but the nation. We are all aware of the Prime Minister's fascination with innovation and agility—they are very well documented. However, how can the young minds of our children be expected to be innovative and agile when they are not given the greatest chance possible of becoming the best versions of themselves? If the government fails to get the basics right—the basic funding right for schools—how can we expect our children to aspire to be prepared for whatever the future holds for them, let alone be innovative and agile?
I am speaking, of course, of the government's failure to fund the last two years of the Gonski reforms and of how very sad that fact is. Malcolm Turnbull's government is short-changing Victorian students $1.1 billion over 2018-19. This is impacting students across our state. Stopping the Gonski reforms part way will lead to entrenching inequality, with many students simply missing out on the support and opportunities available to others. Those with the greatest need stand to lose the most. This is a fact openly acknowledged by Liberal premiers and education ministers. The impact of this can be carried forward through the rest of the child's education and into the workforce. Failing to invest in education is a poor foundation for a high-skill, high-wage economy. Australia will be the worst for it, thanks to this government. Not only will our students lose but Australia will also lose. The OECD reports show that Australia will miss out on a GDP boost of 2.8 per cent unless every student leaves high school with the basic skills needed for the global economy by 2030. That is $44 billion estimated in GDP that the government is foregoing in today's terms.
Furthermore, the report titled Australian schooling—the price of failure and reward for success, completed by former World Bank economist Adam Rorris, found that if all Australian children were to achieve basic levels of literacy and numeracy Australia could receive a windfall of up to $2.2 trillion by 2095. There are also problems with proposals to link salary progression to demonstrate competency and achievement. This reeks of performance pay. John Fischetti, Dean of the School of Education at the University of Newcastle, and Victorian Minister for Education and Deputy Premier James Merlino are amongst many who are critical of performance pay for teachers, pointing to overseas experience that has shown it does not improve student performance. This is corroborated by the finding of the 2012 Productivity Commission report Schools workforce. The major unresolved question, however, is how school funding will be apportioned after 2017 without Gonski, as the minister has made reference to the many funding agreements that exist and to continuing negotiations to reform the school funding system.
This government, however, is not satisfied with just short-changing students as they begin their formal education. It is also intent on gouging them once they enter tertiary education. The suggestion alone that the government wishes to deregulate university fees, which will result in US style $100,000 degrees, shows the true intent of this government. This government wants to maximise profits regardless of how it will impede the ability of those students without the means to pay, so they will have to either forsake their academic potential or submit themselves to crippling debt. This is neither innovative nor agile. Whilst Labor welcomed the government announcement in the 2016-17 budget that the government would abandon its proposal to deregulate tertiary fees, resulting in, as the government said, an estimated saving of $2 billion over five years from 2015-16, it is unclear how the $2 billion in savings has been calculated given the 2014-15 budget did not account for any specific expenses associated with fee deregulation. Make no mistake, if given the chance, the government will float the idea once more. Unfortunately, the government proposes to retain other features of its higher education reform package, including the reduction in the Commonwealth Grants Scheme, CGS, subsidies and the lowering of the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, repayment threshold.
Labor recognises that the foundation of a strong society is its citizens. As such, Labor will never back away from the commitment that, for our society to be strong and for our economy to be robust, we must have the highest standard of education at all levels. Our children must be given the best start and our university students must not be discouraged from their academic endeavours. Simply, we must allow our students to flourish so that they can indeed innovate in the true sense of the word.
Labor are and always have been the party for the arts and of the arts, and in government we delivered on this mantra. In the 2013-14 budget, the previous Labor government allocated $75.3 million over four years from 2013-14 to the Australia Council in response to the recommendations of the 2012 review of the Australia Council for the Arts. The budget stated that the funding would be provided as follows: $15 million per annum for arts organisations across a range of art forms to address the demand for high-quality creative content from established, emerging and hybrid art forms; $1.25 million per annum to establish a $2.5 million funding pool for major performing arts organisations to access on a competitive basis, subject to matched funding from state and territory governments; $1 million per annum to build the professional capacity of the arts sector by assisting the council to develop formal programs of professional development for arts sector managers and cultural leaders; and $1 million per annum for the council to develop a detailed and systematic program of data collection to produce an annual publication on the arts sector. The 2013-14 budget also provided $9.7 million over four years from 2013-14 to the Australia Council to continue the ArtStart program.
But that was then and this is now. In 2014-15, the Australia Council for the Arts received a total of $211.8 million. In 2015-16, the Australia Council for the Arts was allocated only $184.4 million. Additionally, in the 2015-16 budget, the coalition government announced that $110 million over four years would be redirected from the Australia Council and apportioned to the Ministry for the Arts, within the Attorney-General's Department. With most relevance to the matters at hand in the chamber today, I note that in the 2016-17 budget the coalition government provided no additional funding to the Australia Council.
That may have been a long-winded explanation of some facts and figures, so I will simplify it. The coalition are bleeding the Australia Council for the Arts dry. Their current budget measures indicate that they have no intention of reversing their decision. Worse still, they have taken away the independent discretion of the Australian government's principal arts funding and advisory body to distribute funds to the most valuable parts of the arts community in a most objective, judicious and considered fashion. They have arrogated it at various times to senior members of the cabinet. I know who I trust to get it right. A member of my staff used to work in the music industry, in fact, and he has told me stories of artists who sought and received Australia Council grants to fund recordings and tours in the early stages of their careers. Some of them are now some of Australia's best-known acts, with global fan bases. From little things big things grow indeed!
My electorate of Wills has a magnificent arts community. A walk through the streets of Brunswick will provide you with an opportunity to see edgy street art and acclaimed galleries. At night you will hear the sound of live music coming from the pubs and venues on any night of the week. And many of the creative people, including authors, poets and actors, who give us all so much enjoyment and respite, also reside in the electorate of Wills.
I said in my first speech that a thriving arts sector is the heart and soul of any society. Its benefits cannot always be measured in traditional economic terms. The invaluable social benefits can never truly be captured on any tangible metric. To some extent, though, you can make a salient economic case for investment in the arts. For instance, a July 2011 report by Deloitte Access Economics attempted the novel task of charting the economic, social and cultural contribution of venue based live music in the state of Victoria. Let me provide you one illustrative point from that report. In 2011, on conservative projections, it was demonstrated that more people attended live music performances in Melbourne metropolitan venues than attended the games of the AFL home and away season.
We think of that beloved game, Aussie Rules—and I am a very tragic Collingwood supporter; go Pies—as such an important part of our city, and of course it is. The ancillary economic benefits provided through the employment opportunities created are well understood but they are not so well understood with the arts community. Indeed, the Deloitte report concludes that the findings 'indicate sizeable economy-wide benefits are derived from the provision of live music in Victorian venues.' The key difference is that musicians, like most creative artists—but unlike a major sporting code—rarely benefit from corporate sponsorship to fund their pursuits. Hence, government grants and government funding play an enormous role in funding these creative efforts in their very early stages. One mainstay contributor to arts funding has been the Australia Council for the Arts and the grants that they provide to artists deemed by this independent body of experts to be doing things worth supporting.
I want to turn to the challenge of climate change, and most specifically how certain budget measures of this government will impact on Australia's endeavour to do its part to tackle climate change. Without getting too far beyond the scope of the appropriation bills, I do believe that Australians, broadly speaking, do understand why this issue is so important, save for a small undercurrent of sceptics and deniers. Climate change is indeed a scientific observation and there is indeed a broad scientific consensus that it represents a threat to the future of this planet.
While many in the public have become leaders on tackling climate change, nowhere in Australia is this more apparent than in my electorate, where residents have made sound, moral and prudent financial decisions to line their rooftops with solar panels. I believe that the government has a pivotal role to play in funding and promoting initiatives to curb emissions and advance and promote green technologies. I recall being personally delighted that the former Labor government made such progress in their term of office to create mechanisms for the Australian government to play its role in this space.
One of the several initiatives undertaken was the establishment of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or ARENA. The Gillard government established ARENA in July 2012 following the passage of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011. ARENA is a commercially oriented agency of the Commonwealth with a vision to promote an Australian economy and society that is increasingly powered by competitive renewable energy. In short, ARENA aims to reduce the cost and increase the use of renewable energy in Australia. It sought to do this by providing financial support for research, development and demonstration of renewable energy technologies. It continues acting as a conduit for distributing information to all stakeholders in the renewable space. ARENA's publications have become an authority on the topic in this country. In its history, ARENA has also committed more than $1 billion to more than 230 projects, studies, scholarships and fellowships that are helping reduce the cost and increase the use of renewable energy in Australia. It is easy to understand how this is such an important investment in the future of our planet—one that we owe to our kids and our grandkids and generations beyond.
I note that the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 originally included a measure to reduce funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency by $1.26 billion between 2017-18 and 2021-22. This assault follows the Abbott government's attempt to kill ARENA in order to realise budget savings in a previous parliament. While they backed away from that idea following a deal with the Palmer United Party in March 2016, the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment announced that they would discontinue ARENA's grants program. The cuts proposed in this budget were just a reorientation of that earlier strategy, and the $1.26 billion the government sought to slash from ARENA leaves it with only enough money to honour pre-existing commitments.
Like many members and senators, I was subsequently inundated by outraged letters from people concerned about the gutting of ARENA. They saw the government's substitute for the ARENA grants scheme, the Clean Energy Innovation Fund, as inferior and manifestly inadequate. The outrage spread far and wide, and this is not a niche issue anymore; it is broad. In negotiation with the Labor opposition—work done by our frontbench team, including especially Mark Butler, the shadow minister—the government did capitulate to some extent and agreed to reduce the cut to ARENA by $800 million. This allowed ARENA to continue its important grants work to some extent, albeit in a diminished capacity. So, to this measure, let me say this loud and clear: Labor has saved ARENA.
Labor fought for ARENA because we believe in good environmental policy, and we fought for ARENA because we listened to the public and their uproar at such an egregious act on the part of the government. We know that it is incumbent on the opposition to stand up when we hear that call. Most of all, we fought for ARENA because it was the right thing to do for the sake of future generations. Labor has always been committed to ensuring the health of the Australian people, along with committing to the idea that the quality of care someone receives is not based on how deep their pockets are but is rather because they are Australian. On aged care, when in government Labor put in place a 10-year, $3.7 billion reform program to build a fairer, more sustainable and nationally consistent aged-care system. The budget includes cuts of $1.2 billion over four years through changes to the Aged Care Funding Instrument, a tool used to assess care needs. This is something that the Labor opposition will be reviewing with great urgency.
My task today is to speak in response to the appropriation bills now before this chamber. This government has been big on rhetoric, describing its budget as its plan for economic prosperity, using the slogan 'jobs and growth' as the centrepiece to describe its plan. It says in this chamber, and in the House, that this plan received the support of the electorate when the government was returned following the election held on 2 July 2016. The reality is that this so-called plan is nothing of the sort, and the experience in my state of Tasmania is that any sort of plan such as that promoted by the Turnbull Liberal government was comprehensively rejected with the defeat of the former members for Lyons, Braddon and Bass.
These electorates in Tasmania saw that the government's plan for economic prosperity did not acknowledge the true concerns of ordinary Tasmanians. Ordinary Tasmanians were concerned about jobs, education and health. Ordinary Tasmanians were concerned that this government did not understand the pressures caused by the underfunding of our public hospital system. They also understood that investment in Gonski reforms would deliver real education outcomes for ordinary households and that Labor's infrastructure investments in sewerage works and the UTas transformation project would provide long-term jobs, together with improving educational attainment for our young people.
This government's plan for economic growth did not involve listening to anyone who had concerns about public health, public education or obtaining a job. This government's plan involves a lazy transfer of income tax revenue on the off-chance that the debunked trickle-down economics will improve growth and employment outcomes in the Australian economy. There is a depressing lack of imagination in this government's vision for a future Australia. This government is led by a Prime Minister who is indistinguishable from the last Prime Minister and his policies, with everyone noting his disdain for many of the values that he once held to be true.
Tasmania has problems with low educational attainment and an underperforming economy compared with other states. Respected economists like Saul Eslake link the two issues together and suggest that further investment in education will drive improvements in economic performance. There is nothing in this government's plan, as represented in the budget and these appropriation bills, which recognises that truth. Indeed, it is significant that this government's so-called plan did not include any commitment to the UTas transformation project, which ultimately was the subject of a commitment in the very late stages of the last election campaign.
I am proud, as the then Labor candidate for Bass, that an announcement was made by Labor to support the University of Tasmania transformation project in its two northern campuses prior to the launch of the formal election campaign. Labor recognised that the transformation project was a vital infrastructure project delivering jobs to the Northern Tasmanian economy but also fulfilled a much higher function—that is, assisting young Tasmanians in achieving higher educational attainment, driving economic growth in the long term and improving our community on so many levels. In contrast, the government's economic plan for Northern Tasmania, as revealed in this budget, reveals little about the vision that the Liberal-National Party coalition has for Tasmania.
In my view, local government in the electorate of Bass need not wait until an election campaign to receive commitments from our federal government as to road infrastructure and the like; this is the stuff that federal and local governments have delivered for years in cooperation. It does not speak well of the commitment to infrastructure in our island state if the federal government relies upon the election campaign to deliver basic road infrastructure. Nevertheless, the federal government is to be congratulated for having committed to the University of Tasmania project and to Launceston City Council's Launceston City Heart Project. This project, for all the reasons previously expressed, is absolutely vital to the future of Northern Tasmania and should not have been in any way a matter of contention.
The plan for Northern Tasmania which Labor took to the election was a comprehensive reflection of our consultation with, and our listening to, the electors of Northern Tasmania. The people that I spoke to—during the course of more than 12 months doorknocking and speaking to people at campaign events—were concerned about maintenance of universal public health and an education system that delivered real outcomes for our students. Our communities were disappointed to hear in the course of an election debate that the federal government did not run hospitals and did not run schools. These were propositions that were put in answer to the fact that further funding was required to both health and education in Tasmania. There were real concerns in the electorate of Bass about funding for the Launceston General Hospital, and that concern remains whilst our health system is constantly under stress.
In my short time in parliament, I have listened to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, in particular, lauding the fact that this government is delivering extra funding. The minister refers to increased funding for health. The minister refers to the fact that the government is delivering more bulk-billed episodes of care for general practitioners and scheduling more drugs on the PBS and that this—in a lecturing tone—is only possible due to the government's commitment to a sustainable Medicare system. Now, this is, of course, code and cover for significant cuts to health which are having a deep impact on the front line in our hospitals, not just in Tasmania but throughout Australia.
This government's unfair 2014 budget counted as 'savings' significant amounts of anticipated expenditure on health and education over the forward estimates and out from that. It claims that, as the expenditure was not budgeted for, the savings are not cuts at all. This is an exercise in sophistry. If you talk to our hardworking doctors, nurses and allied health professionals in our hospitals, they will tell you the real impact this government's 'savings' have on the delivery of care in our hospitals—that is, on the front line. Those doctors, nurses and allied health professionals understand, as does the electorate, that health costs—so-called healthcare inflation—typically rise at a rate greater than the general inflation rate. They understand that the volume of presentations at our emergency departments and the acuity of a condition are not reflected in the model which claims to deliver additional funding year after year without taking into account increased demand, greater levels of acuity and greater costs for inputs—that is, the costs of delivering that care.
The same or similar is true with respect to our public education system. There was great support in my electorate for the Gonski reforms to be delivered in full. The people I spoke to understood that the majority of the extra funding, based on need, which was to be delivered under Gonski, was to be delivered in the later years. This government represented that it was on a 'unity ticket' with Labor at the 2013 federal election, but subsequently recanted its commitment to Gonski. Electors from across my electorate and across backgrounds recognised the importance of education as a public good, in improving the lot of all of our students and the community as a whole. I have previously used the analogy that public education is important for the child next door and for the child over the road, as those children need the best education for the community to thrive. Whilst an individual family might have some measure of control over the education of their child or children, it is in the interests of our communities that all children receive the best education so as to fight disadvantage, particularly economic disadvantage.
I have spoken earlier about the contrast between the economic plan taken to the election by the government and what was offered to the electors of Bass by the Labor campaign. It is useful to contrast what the Liberal government said was driving its economic decisions—in particular, the unfair 2014 federal budget—and what this government in fact delivered. Three years ago, the Liberals declared a budget emergency. I would ask them, then: what would they call the budget situation that we find ourselves in now? Despite all their unfair cuts and broken promises, they have tripled the deficit since 2014. Their first budget predicted the deficit for 2016-17 at $10.6 billion. Now we hear from them that the figure is over $37 billion. Net debt is up by $100 billion since the 2013 election. The 2013 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook confirmed that net debt was $184 billion. The 2016 budget papers show that that has now blown out to $326 billion this year. The Turnbull government has failed its own test of fiscal responsibility. Despite the continual chants of 'jobs and growth', after three years of Liberal government spending is up, deficits are up, debt is up, wages are down and living standards are down.
This month, Prime Minister Turnbull graced my electorate of Bass with his presence, to sign a memorandum of understanding with the state government to progress the redevelopment of the UTAS Inveresk campus. Certainly I was thrilled that the Prime Minister finally confirmed the funding which was promised in the election—especially considering the reluctance of the Liberal Party to commit to this project during the election campaign until the last minute. The Labor Party knows that a positive future for Bass is dependent on improving educational standards in Tasmania, which is why we identified the importance of funding the university relocation as a key part of our positive plans for jobs, education and health for the people of Bass. We committed to the project months and months ago, recognising that this long-term investment had the potential to increase educational attainment, revive jobs growth and support a strong economic future for northern Tasmania. If the Liberals understood the importance of this critical project, they would have funded it in the budget—not eight days out from an election, which the more cynical individual might see as a last-ditch attempt to play catch-up and save the seat of the then sitting member.
The people of Bass, my constituents, expect much more from the Turnbull government. They expect a plan for jobs in northern Tasmania. We have an unemployment rate above six per cent and a youth unemployment rate which is, shamefully, above 15 per cent. I am baffled that the Turnbull government still seemingly has no clear plan for northern Tasmania when it comes to the critical infrastructure investment that we desperately need to encourage jobs growth, boost the health and overall wellbeing of Tasmanians and secure a strong economic future. I am, nevertheless, grateful that through the City Deals process, the City of Launceston will benefit from the transformation project, and also, the Launceston City Council's Launceston City Heart Project.
However, there is much more to be done, and much more should be done in a number of critical areas. The Tamar River sewerage improvement plan is one of these key projects that the Liberals did not consider important enough to fund in their budget. Launceston's combined sewerage system dates back to the 1860s. It is clearly insufficient to meet the standards and needs of a growing Launceston community. Just 33 per cent of wastewater plants met their environmental licence in 2015, and within the state of Tasmania there are 23 towns where residents are not able to drink the water directly from their taps. Without a modern, tertiary-standard treatment plant, water quality will not improve. The environment of our river will continue to be degraded and the health and safety of Launceston residents will continue to suffer.
Before the last election, TasWater guaranteed $400 million over 10 years to a $1.8 billion upgrade of that water and sewerage infrastructure, with the project contingent on external funding. I am proud that I was able to seek a commitment from federal Labor to provide $75 million for the extensive works required to consolidate and upgrade Launceston's water infrastructure. I said at the time it was important to make a start, despite the fact that the capital requirement was very significant and the project would take many years to complete. Indeed, the Launceston Sewerage Improvement Project is one of the largest urban infrastructure projects ever undertaken in Tasmania.
Infrastructure Australia has independently assessed the project as a priority on the basis that it benefits the economy and community as a whole. I am still of the view that it would be inequitable for the burden of such a significant capital project to fall purely upon the shareholders of TasWater and the ratepayers of Tasmania. The failure of this Liberal government to act on this project and commit to the necessary infrastructure funding is putting at risk the environment, and the health and safety of Tasmanian communities. (Time expired)
In speaking to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 and related bills, I am reminded that one of the key issues we should all bear in mind as we discuss government priorities is the quality of life of our local residents and what we can do, as local members, to improve that quality of life. Of course, we cannot add more hours to the day, but we can take substantial steps, as members of parliament, to improve the quality of life and the logistics of life for our local residents.
I want to mention three issues on which I believe far more needs to be done at a federal level to improve the quality of life for my residents in Greenway. The first is aged care. We know that this government has made substantial cuts in the area of aged care, but it is important to recognise the way in which these cuts not only have a very real impact on people on the ground but also really do not bode well for the developments that are happening as we are living longer.
I had the opportunity this morning to discuss with Wendy Harmer on 702 ABC some particular issues to do with my electorate and the growing diversity in my area, where we have a very large population from the subcontinent. In fact, in the Blacktown local government area, which is one of the largest in Australia, the most common surname is not Smith or Jones: it is the Sikh or Punjabi name, Singh. What we have at the moment is a real crisis in managing the future, as many of these people are getting older and they will have the need for culturally-sensitive aged care.
Aged care comes in a number of different forms. You can have activities-based care, which is primarily focussed on getting older people out and about and connected to one another to network and to socialise. There is permanent accommodation. Sometimes that means higher-needs medical care than others. And there is respite care for families who are happy to have elderly parents live in their homes but who need a break every now and then.
One thing that I found very interesting in the last election, through speaking to people, doorknocking, phone calls and mobile offices—one of the clearest issues that came out—was not necessarily what was making the front page of the paper or the lead story of that day. The number of people who are not only caring for children but are finding themselves in a situation where they are also caring for elderly parents or elderly relatives, I think, really is something that is under the radar. The need to support these types of families, many of whom I see being completely exhausted and not knowing where to turn, is a significant challenge. So I particularly want to highlight the issue not only of addressing the large numbers of people who will require different amounts of care but specifically how we are going to assist people who come from different cultural backgrounds as they get older.
Azal Khan has a very interesting article in today's Blacktown Advocate where she talks about how aged care really needs a stronger cultural focus. In it she mentions an excellent local organisation I have had a lot to do with, the Sri Om Foundation, that provides centre based respite care. It started off initially with about five clients. Now it takes clients from just about every nationality on the subcontinent. I think the important thing to note is this: no two families are the same; everyone has different needs. If we are going to have a sustainable, cohesive policy in this area, it really needs to be one which is based on feedback from local communities about what people need, what kinds of services they require to access and it needs to be responsive to that. I am very pleased to see my colleague the member for Franklin, who has instigated an inquiry into making sure that our future aged care workforce is equipped with skills for different cultural needs, different linguistic needs.
One of the first things to go, I understand, if you have early onset dementia is your second language so that would include people who have lived in this country for a very long time and who would have become fluent in English. I have even heard of instances where these people have ended up reverting to their village dialects so there is virtually no-one who can understand them. Considering the number of people for whom it is projected will have dementia or related diseases in the next decade or so, this is a challenge that we simply cannot ignore. I am very grateful not only to my local media but also to our public broadcaster for bringing that to the attention of people. We actually had a number of talkback calls come in and every single one of them agreed with these principles and these views that I am articulating here.
The second issue I want to mention—and I know the member for Longman, being in the outer suburbs of Brisbane, would understand very well—is we talk a lot about investing in public transport but public transport has to be accessible. One of the biggest issues with accessibility for public transport in many parts of Western Sydney is the availability of commuter parking. Because if you cannot actually access public transport then it is virtually worthless or, if it is not worthless, it does have an impact on quality of life as I discussed earlier.
For many years I have been listening to local residents who live around Schofield Station in my electorate. We have a new suburb called The Ponds and we have a lot of new development going on around Schofield and Riverstone. The main station that most of these people use on the western line is Schofield Station. Unfortunately, whilst it is a relatively new-looking station, it does not have adequate car parking. We have a situation where, if you get to Schofield Station shortly after six am, you are virtually guaranteed of not getting a parking spot. So people are forced to park along Railway Parade, nearly all the way up to the Burdekin Road—local residents will know exactly what I am talking about. They are forced to park up unlit streets that are not surfaced virtually in semirural parts around the station, which is completely unacceptable when you consider the amount of traffic going through there and when you consider the amount of time it takes to walk from where they park to the station. So it is a significant safety issue for these people as well not only in terms of traffic but in terms of their own physical safety.
When I started a petition to get more commuter parking in this area, I can honestly say that it was the fastest returned and most endorsed petition that I have conducted as the member for Greenway. I brought this to the attention of our shadow minister, the member for Grayndler, and we examined the opportunities, noting that federal Labor had in the past, for example, funded commuter parking at stations such as Penrith. I was delighted when, during the campaign, Mr Albanese was able to come out to Schofields Station and examine the situation for himself firsthand so he could see exactly what I was talking about. He committed that a Shorten Labor government would provide $5 million towards kickstarting a substantial increase in commuter parking at this station.
I was, however, quite astounded to see that my Liberal opponent did not think that this was much of an issue at all. She said, as reported in the Rouse Hill Times, on 18 May 2016:
The residents that I have been speaking with have been far more interested in the Turnbull Liberal team's plan to support the growth of local small businesses, so that they have more opportunity to work locally and avoid the need to commute.
Well, I would love to have everyone avoid the need to commute, but when you have hundreds of people needing to get outside their area every day and needing to get to their jobs, most often in Parramatta or in the CBD area, simply ignoring the issue will not make the problem go away. When she said that she had been speaking to these people, I do not know who she had been speaking to. She certainly was not speaking to anyone who was actually using Schofields Station. I note that some time later—in July—the state member, when announcing a substantially smaller grant of $2.75 million from the New South Wales government, recognised the need for additional parking at Schofields Station. It is quite astounding that on the one hand we have elements of the Liberal Party saying that there is nothing to see here and that there is no problem but on the other hand we have a significantly smaller amount of money being allocated by the New South Wales state government.
I welcome any money that is going towards this issue, but clearly what is lacking here, in addressing issues of quality of life, is a coherent plan. Again, I point out that we were the only party going into the last election with a coherent plan in this area. I am looking at the policy statement of 19 June from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister, Mr Albanese. The plan was to:
…invest $120 million in a Park and Ride Access Fund to boost car parking capacities at high use train stations, and make funding available for new stations where demand growth is expected.
I will contend that there are few areas where you will get bigger demand growth than in the north-west of Sydney and, particularly, around Schofields Station and those emerging areas such as The Ponds.
I want to mention a significant issue that goes to not only quality of life for residents in my area but also the quality of life of people trying to operate their small businesses—that is, the appalling state of broadband access in many parts of my electorate. I commend the Blacktown Advocate for its edition of 14 September. It did a case study of a family in Blacktown, the Terzic family, who enjoy the benefits of being connected to Labor's fibre-to-the-premises network. Blacktown was one of the sites of the first Sydney metro rollout. They have been connected to the network since August 2014. They said:
It gives us all more time to be able to get all our jobs done and to enjoy our interests and hobbies online.
That is from having high-speed broadband delivered by the highest quality infrastructure.
If you go down the road a few minutes and arrive at Sarah El-Akkad's house in Acacia Gardens, her internet is so slow that she is forced to use her mobile phone most of the time. As we know, using mobile data is an incredibly expensive process. Sarah is quoted:
"It's hard for me because uni courses now depend so much on the internet. You need to be able to constantly check emails because they might need to let you know if the time has changed for an exam."
She is one of many Acacia Gardens residents frustrated by national broadband network delays.
All that would be fine if they actually had some relief in sight, but, as I have mentioned in this chamber on a number of occasions, Acacia Gardens is in this broadband black hole. For some reason, there are parts of Acacia Gardens that are too far away from the exchange to be serviced. They have not been prioritised under this government's NBN and they do not even show up on the rollout map. There is a three-year construction schedule for the NBN that has Acacia Gardens and some neighbouring areas, including Kings Park and Parklea, at least two years away from having the NBN turned on. And what NBN is it? It is a second-rate, copper based network, with fibre-to-the-node delivery, thanks to this Prime Minister. By the time they actually get this, in two years, not only will they have an inferior product; it will be obsolete. So there is absolutely no relief in sight for the residents in these suburbs.
If you want to talk about small businesses like my opponent wanted to at the last election, you have got to give them the tools they need. The number of small businesses I have in my area who are so frustrated, who have had to decide: 'I don't know if it's worth going on in this current venture anymore'—it is appalling to think that people have to make these sorts of decisions because they do not have access to basic infrastructure. Contrast that with Labor's fibre-to-the-premises model. I have used on many occasions the example of the Good Egg Studio in Riverstone, part of the site of the first Sydney metro rollout, where business is booming because they have Labor's real NBN. These are all issues of quality of life that this government is failing to address and needs to address.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:17