I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill introduces amendments to align the time period for income reconciliation for certain family tax benefit recipients for the 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 financial years and to correct an unintended consequence generated by the youth allowance rate calculator.
Specifically, amendments will be made to the date-of-effect provisions to clarify longstanding administrative practice in relation to the payment in arrears of family tax benefit. In effect, the amendments will ensure that it is clear an individual cannot be paid family tax benefit supplements and top-ups where they notified that they were not required to lodge an income tax return more than one year after the end of the relevant income year.
These amendments ensure consistency with the equivalent time frame currently applying to families who were required to lodge a tax return for the 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 financial years.
These amendments strengthen existing provisions to ensure that their interpretation is beyond doubt. There will be no material effect on family tax benefit recipients for these years given the one-year time frame has been in effect since 2012-13 and has been communicated to recipients clearly since that time.
One year is considered to be a reasonable amount of time for families to notify Centrelink that they are not required to lodge and/or provide details of types of income not included in a tax return in order for reconciliation of their family tax benefit entitlement to occur.
These amendments will ensure that full effect is given to the original 2013 realignment of time period for income reconciliation budget measure and that the intent of the family assistance program is met, which is to deliver financial assistance to families to help with the cost of raising children when it is needed.
The bill also includes contingent amendments to remove reference to family tax benefit supplements in the event they are phased out as part of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016, which themselves are designed to improve the sustainability of the family payments system.
This bill also introduces amendments to correct an unintended consequence of amendments that were made in part 3 of schedule 1 of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Act 2015 to the youth allowance rate calculator, which appears in section 1067G of the Social Security Act 1991.
It is intended that the rate calculator produce a fortnightly rate. Currently there is an inconsistency in that step 1 of the rate calculator is expressed as an annual amount while subsequent steps are expressed as fortnightly amounts. The result is that comparing the outcome of the subsequent steps from the calculation in step 1 does not generally provide the correct threshold test outcome, and in most cases will result in a harsher outcome.
The error occurred because of introducing complex maintenance income rules from A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (which are predicated on annual amounts) to the Social Security Act 1991 (where payments are based on fortnightly amounts). The change that is proposed amends step 1 in the rate calculator to reduce the figure to a fortnightly amount consistent with the original intent of the changes as announced by the government in the 2015-16 budget.
This amendment ensures that the aim to align the parental means testing arrangements for youth allowance more closely with those for family tax benefit part A will be met.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill introduces a package of measures designed to enhance and better target the paid parental leave scheme—referred to here as the PPL scheme.
The government recognises the important role of parents in the primary care of their children and so maintains a range of programs and payments to support them. Currently, the government spends an undeniably substantial amount of taxpayers' money in three main areas of direct family support each year: around $20 billion in family tax benefit; around $6 billion in childcare benefit and childcare rebate; and around $2 billion in paid parental leave.
The government's commitment to supporting parents in caring for their children must of course be balanced with the responsibility to ensure that family assistance and social security payments are well targeted and also sustainable into the future.
The government considers that all working parents should be entitled to paid leave to spend important bonding time with their newborn or newly adopted child in those important early months. Our PPL policy will provide the important safety net for families who do not have access to employer schemes, or only have access to a few weeks under an employer scheme, distributing funding more fairly amongst new parents in a way that better recognises need.
The revised package in this bill maintains the important features of the existing PPL scheme. It will maintain the positive outcomes that the scheme has generated, while delivering savings that can be used to fund other policy priorities to support greater workforce participation.
There are around 300,000 births in Australia each year, with around half of all new mothers accessing the PPL scheme. The current scheme provides eligible working parents with 18 weeks of payment at the rate of the national minimum wage, currently $672 per week—therefore, a total of $12,106 over 18 weeks.
To receive parental leave pay, a parent must be away from work and caring for a baby or newly-adopted child. Parental leave pay can be accessed anytime from the date of birth until the baby's first birthday, but needs to be taken in one continuous 18-week block.
A review of the PPL scheme was conducted by the Department of Social Services during 2013 and the first half of 2014, as required under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. This review drew on several sources, including public submissions, consultation meetings, administrative data and findings from an external PPL evaluation conducted by independent researchers between 2010 and 2014.
One of the key findings from the PPL evaluation was that PPL has increased the length of time that mothers spend away from work following the birth of a child, and increased the likelihood that they return to work by the time their baby is 12 months old. It must be noted, however, that studies show that, for mothers with higher incomes, the current PPL scheme is not having an significant impact on how much time they take off after a birth or the timing of their return to work.
The two central purposes of the government's PPL scheme are: first, in helping to enable parents, particularly mothers, to take time away from work in the crucial first few months of a child's life—and the health benefits of this time for both the mother and the baby cannot be overstated: second, to encourage expanded participation in the workforce, especially by mothers, which is a key objective of the government. And PPL is an important element in the mix of policies aimed at encouraging and supporting participation. Strengthening women's economic security reduces their vulnerability to poverty, homelessness and family violence.
When women are economically empowered, whole families and entire communities benefit. Children are better off growing up in families with working parents, as they have access to more opportunities and are less likely themselves to become welfare dependent.
The government understands the important role of PPL in supporting the health and wellbeing of mothers and babies and in encouraging workforce participation. The measures in this bill are designed to support these objectives in a fair and equitable way that sees PPL funds directed to those most in need of assistance.
Presently, mothers can access both 18 weeks of parental leave pay as well as any employer-provided paid parental leave. They can also choose to access parental leave pay at the same time as other paid leave if they want, an approach that does not necessarily extend the time taken off after a birth.
Findings from the external evaluation of the PPL scheme show that the current arrangements are having the most pronounced impact on lower income mothers, including those who are self-employed or casually employed. These mothers are much less likely to have access to employer schemes, and they benefit from being able to access the current 18-week PPL scheme.
As noted, however, for mothers with higher incomes the PPL scheme is not having an significant impact on how much time they take off after a birth or on their timing of their return to work.
It is not expected that providing some boundaries to government-provided PPL for mothers of higher incomes and more generous employer schemes will have a negative impact on their ability to take time away from work following a baby, or on their workforce participation decisions. Decisions around participation are more likely to be influenced by other factors such as the access to and affordability of child care, for which the government has proposed very significant improvements and reforms in its Jobs for Families Child Care Package.
The government is committed to maintaining the positive outcomes and features of the present PPL scheme while also making it fairer by better targeting government assistance to those families without access to comprehensive employer-provided parental leave pay.
Placing some limits on the number of weeks of government-provided parental leave pay that can be accessed by those with access to substantial employer-provided paid parental leave will make the scheme fairer and more equitable in its distribution of funds and will not undermine the objectives of the scheme.
Arrangements will not be changed for those mothers without access to employer-provided paid parental leave. These mothers will continue to receive the whole 18 weeks of government-provided parental leave pay. Indeed, under this proposal all eligible mothers will receive a minimum of 18 weeks of paid parental leave at at least the minimum wage.
This new PPL measure, however, better directs PPL expenditure to those who benefit from it the most, while maintaining the shared responsibility of employers and government in combining to provide adequate paid parental leave for those with higher wages and substantial employer-based schemes.
The new PPL measure make it much less likely that employers will wind back their own schemes, since the new arrangements now being proposed will encourage employers to build on the foundation that is the PPL scheme.
The proposed measure considers the number of weeks of paid parental leave an employer provides, and then pays a further amount of taxpayer-funded parental leave pay up to a total of 18 weeks.
For example, an employee who receives eight weeks of an employer-provided paid parental leave will receive an additional 10 weeks of taxpayer-funded parental leave pay. The parental leave pay payment under this proposal aims to extend the amount of time a parent can take away from work, and therefore will not be able to be taken concurrently with the employer-provided paid parental leave.
There are also some circumstances, such as when a person works part-time, where a person receives less than the national minimum wage during a period of employer-provided paid parental leave, which may, also, be less than 18 weeks. In these instances, the government will supplement the person's employer paid parental leave to the level of the national minimum wage for that period, as well as then pay a further amount of PPL up to a total of 18 weeks.
It is estimated that more than half of working women eligible for parental leave pay also do not have access to any employer-provided paid parental leave and will therefore be totally unaffected by this measure. That group will continue to have access to the full 18 weeks of taxpayer-funded parental leave pay at the national minimum wage. These tend to be mothers with lower incomes. They are also predominantly working in the private sector. This group includes mothers who are employed casually and those who are self-employed.
It is then further estimated that over 40 per cent of working mothers who will be eligible for parental leave pay will have access also to employer-provided paid parental leave of less than 18 weeks. Under the proposed new arrangements, this group of mothers will be eligible for a further payment of parental leave pay, to ensure and to take their total combined employer-provided and taxpayer-funded entitlement up to 18 weeks.
It is then estimated that only four per cent of working mothers will no longer be eligible for the taxpayer-funded parental leave pay. This group will be those that are likely to have the higher incomes and have access to employer-provided paid parental leave of at least 18 weeks, above the minimum wage.
This measure ensures that the taxpayer-funded PPL scheme acts as a fair safety net for those families who do not have access to substantial public-sector or corporate schemes. Importantly, all eligible parents will continue to have access to a guaranteed 18 weeks of paid parental leave at, at least, the full rate of the national minimum wage. This will occur either from a combination of taxpayer-funded parental leave pay and employer-provided paid parental leave, or from taxpayer-funded parental leave pay only.
To further enhance the fairness of the PPL system, this bill also includes some very important enhancements to the current PPL work test and backdating arrangements. These changes are being made in response to representations from the community and from issues that were raised as part of the PPL review.
In response to findings from the PPL review, from 1 January 2017, the PPL work test rules will be modified to take into account the circumstances of pregnant women in occupations where they cannot continue working during the pregnancy.
This change will allow the PPL work test to be moved to an earlier period in circumstances where a pregnant woman has had to cease work due to a hazard in her workplace that would create a risk to her pregnancy and where another safe job could not be provided.
In such a case, if the primary claimant could not satisfy the work test that would ordinarily apply, because she ceased work, the work test period becomes the 392 days immediately before the day on which she ceased work because of the hazards.
In addition, from 1 January 2017, a longer break between two working days will be allowed under the PPL work test rules. To meet the current PPL work test, a parent must have worked 330 hours in 10 of the 13 months before the child's date of birth. A parent can have a break of up to eight weeks between two working days in this period and still satisfy the present work test.
But, in some professions, such as casual teachers, there may be a longer break between two workdays, which would otherwise prevent them from accessing parental leave pay despite having a long work history. To address circumstances such as those faced by casual teachers, the permissible break between two working days will be widened to 12 weeks.
Parents are able to lodge their claim for parental leave pay up to three months before the expected date of birth, and are required to provide proof of the birth before payments can commence. Under current arrangements, Parental Leave Pay payments can only be backdated where a claim is completed and proof of birth provided within four weeks of the birth.
This bill will also extend the four-week backdating arrangements to all claims. These more generous backdating provisions will give parents more time to finalise their claim, and reduce the chance of a family missing out on some parental leave pay because they have returned to work, or in circumstances such as where a mother or child is suffering from a medical condition relating to the birth of the child.
Finally, this bill will also implement the government's continued commitment to reduce the red-tape burden on Australian society and compliance costs on businesses by ensuring that employers are not required to be the paymaster for the government's PPL scheme.
This bill will remove the mandatory requirement for employers to administer taxpayer-funded parental leave pay to their eligible long-term employees.
This will mean, from 1 January 2017, all parents will receive their Parental Leave Pay payments directly from the Department of Human Services unless an employer opts in to provide Parental Leave Pay payments to its employees, and an employee agrees to their employer paying them.
This change will generate an estimated $44 million reduction in annual compliance costs for Australian businesses.
The government is continuing to reduce red-tape burdens for business, including new and established businesses, and this is a critical step towards improving Australia's productivity. Of course, unnecessary red tape hinders innovation, investment and job creation.
Importantly, this measure is strongly supported by the business community. In a member survey conducted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in May 2013, 84 per cent of businesses agreed the government should not require employers to be the paymasters for the PPL scheme.
The government's commitment to support parents in caring for their children must of course be balanced with the responsibility to ensure that payments are well targeted and sustainable into the future. This bill provides an important safety net for families who do not have access to an employer scheme, or who only have access to a few weeks of funded leave, whilst also at the same time being fairer for all Australians and Australian taxpayers.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Expanded Information Technology Agreement Implementation and other measures) Bill 2016 implements commitments made in the 2016-17 budget to reduce customs duty on certain information technology products.
This bill contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to reduce the customs duty on certain information technology products to free. These reductions will occur incrementally over time, commencing on 1 January 2017.
The customs duty for the majority of products included in this bill, including printing ink and certain types of equipment used in the manufacture of printed circuits, will become free on 1 July 2019. A small number of products, including certain types of audio speakers, will become free on 1 July 2021.
Australia is a net importer of information technology products. The progressive elimination of customs duty on certain information technology products will benefit Australian industries and consumers through lower costs. I recommend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Treasurer, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Australian Federal Police facility security enhancement project.
The Australian Federal Police's property portfolio is a key enabler of the Federal Police's capabilities, enhancing the organisation's readiness, capacity and ability to carry out its responsibilities for law enforcement investigations and national security. Providing secure facilities is a critical component of property being an enabler for the Federal Police to deliver its services at the level expected by the Australian government. The AFP recently conducted a vulnerability assessment which identified eight sites as being high-priority targets. In response, the AFP proposes to undertake refurbishment and construction works on owned and leased premises. Refurbishment and construction works will focus on improvised explosive device protection, intruder resistance protection and system response capability. The estimated cost of $39.4 million, excluding GST, for the refurbishment and construction covers all costs associated with the delivery of the project, including provision for contingencies, cost escalation and professional fees. Subject to the approval of the project by the parliament, the fit-out is expected to commence in early 2017 and to be completed by late 2017. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Treasurer, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: LAND 17 Phase 1B/1C—Construction and upgrade of indirect fire support facilities.
The Department of Defence is proposing to construct new and refurbished facilities and infrastructure to support the introduction, operation and deployment of the new Australian Defence Force artillery capability at eight Defence locations across Australia. This multiphase project will give the ADF a new suite of ammunition, artillery command and fire control systems, and new delivery platforms for Australian regular army units across Australia. The project will provide functional cost-effective facilities designed to be suitable for the local climate and of a style consistent with the character of the sites and other comparable Defence facilities. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $57.11 million, excluding GST. This includes construction costs, escalation allowances, professional service fees, design, construction, Defence contingencies and information technology equipment. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to begin in early 2017, with completion expected by early 2018. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I rise in support of the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 that is before the House—a bill I strongly believe ought to be supported by all members of this House.
Up until this point, the path that we have taken as a government on this issue has been straightforward and reasonable. Following a deeply respectful and consultative party room meeting, the coalition took a promise to the last election to resolve this issue of same-sex marriage through a vote by all Australians in a national plebiscite. This is not just a narrowly targeted opinion poll, as some have called it—we have plenty of those. It is a detailed, comprehensive chance for all Australians to have their say.
Soon after 2 July, the result was clear: the coalition retained government and a plebiscite was part of the suite of policies that were endorsed by the Australian people. Now we have honoured that commitment that we made, with the introduction of this plebiscite bill and the release of an exposure draft of the proposed legislative amendments to the Marriage Act.
As the secretary of the coalition's backbench committee on legal affairs, I have witnessed the consultative, respectful and thought-through process that has taken place in constructing both the bill we are debating today and the exposure draft to change the Marriage Act. This part of the process has been rightly straightforward. But, as many of us on both sides of this House are aware, the issue itself is certainly not straightforward. Despite attempts by advocates to take this issue hostage, there is a desperate need to have a conversation that goes well beyond the narrow scope that we have seen so far, to capture the full and far-reaching implications of changing the Marriage Act.
Changing the definition of marriage is not simple, because it alters what is possibly one of the most fundamental cornerstones of life as we know it. There are a number of deeply significant and foundational questions that still need to be socialised with the Australian people—questions that I will raise today and which I believe have not been publicly canvassed in a way that enables fulsome and proper debate on what marriage is or even what it should be.
Redefining marriage is not something we should just get on with and not a decision to take simply because other countries have done it or it is a 'gentle evolution of marriage'. Put simply, changing the definition of marriage would be to change the very nature of marriage itself. I acknowledge that there are people and organisations on all sides of this issue—for and against same-sex marriage, for and against a plebiscite—who are passionate and committed and who have deeply held personal views on both the substance of the debate and the process by which it will be decided. I respect those views. But, sadly, it is hard to respect the Labor Party's approach to this issue. By refusing to acknowledge the decency of the Australian people and their ability to have a respectful debate, Labor has cynically played politics with this most important issue by opposing the plebiscite bill. In doing so, Labor has rejected the wishes of the Australian people to resolve the issue by plebiscite and simply refused to deal with the government in good faith.
Standing up for fundamental principles is not entirely easy, especially when the debate has turned from the substance of the issue at hand—allowing same-sex couples to marry—to the process, namely a plebiscite to determine the outcome. That is what we are debating: an actual process. Having spoken with hundreds of people in my electorate, it is sad to see that even Labor representatives on the Central Coast, such as the Labor senator for New South Wales Deborah O'Neill, have failed to stand up for their convictions and principles on same-sex marriage. Back in 2011 the then Labor member for Robertson took a very strong view to the New South Wales Labor conference. The Sydney Morning Herald reported at the time that Ms O'Neill said people who were opposed to gay marriage, like herself, were unfairly maligned as bigoted, intolerant or homophobic. Ms O'Neill put on the record that the Marriage Act should only unite a man and woman.
Regardless of culture, time or place—
she said—
the organic nature of the family unit that is the natural consequence of the union of a man and a woman is a key social unit …
She said it is on this unit that 'the state of society is built'. Ms O'Neill said, as quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald:
It is a commonly held position in the broad Australian community.
Yet in an interview on ABC Central Coast radio last week the now Labor senator for New South Wales refused to stand on these principles and would not discuss her own view about this vital issue. Instead, she sharply criticised the government's plebiscite, which she described as an 'unnecessary conversation and a glorified opinion poll'. It is another clear example of Labor playing politics with this very serious issue. My question to Senator O'Neill and the Labor Party is: what is so unnecessary about having this important conversation? What is so unnecessary about a clear and democratic path to resolving the issue of same-sex marriage? Why is it wrong to allow the Australian people to be heard? Perhaps it is because Labor did nothing to progress same-sex marriage during their six years in government.
It is deeply concerning when we see somebody who took such a public and principled stand, as Senator O'Neill did just a few short years ago, back down and retreat to the cynical Labor talking points. In the same-sex marriage debate these talking points, like 'marriage equality' and 'love is love', tug at the heartstrings. They certainly tug at my heartstrings. They are designed to lead you down a path to what advocates say is the only logical and morally right conclusion. The result, of course, is an attempt to make the question so persuasive that there can only be a single answer—broadly, that same-sex marriage is all about love, equality and wedding bells. Alternative viewpoints have been shut out and disregarded as irrelevant before they have even been debated, tested and weighed.
But digging deeper into this issue reveals that changing the definition of marriage actually requires us to ask more questions. The way that the same-sex marriage debate has unfolded means we are left to tackle more and more slogans, in particular from the Labor Party, most recently that a plebiscite would be 'expensive and divisive'. I would like to suggest that the expense and the argument are potentially the price of democracy—the chance to hear the voice of the Australian people. It does cost money, yes, but I see this as an opportunity cost. As the Prime Minister said, what price do we place on democracy? We have the claims that a plebiscite will be divisive and will fuel hostility. With respect to members opposite, isn't the heat in this debate the very reason we should have a full and proper conversation before a decision is made? If there is more to say, what could be more necessary than a carefully considered structure to hear these views?
What if for a moment, as part of this debate, we dared to think through other possible implications of a fundamental change to the definition of marriage? What if it were about more than 'love'? What if it were also the question of a legacy for our children, our grandchildren and the generations that follow? What if we carefully thought through the implications of changing a social framework for families and the raising of children—our next generation? To take this further, what if we had a genuine conversation about the generational implications for the upbringing of children in changing the definition of marriage? What if we dared go even further and asked ourselves: 'Does this matter?' That is not 'Does this matter for ourselves?' of course, because the ones who want to make this decision are grown, consenting adults; it is: 'Does this matter for children—for our children and their children—beyond just the legal recognition of their parents' relationship?'
As we know, families today are not just nuclear families that reflect the so-called traditional marriage framework but also single-parent, same-sex and blended families living in towns and cities and on farms right around our country. Given this reality, is the current definition of marriage even relevant today?
I would argue that it absolutely is. Regardless of whether you are married, a de facto couple, a single parent or a same-sex couple, in my view the institution of marriage exists as a reference point for families.
I believe it works as a reference point or a framework that recognises that children, where possible, need a mother and father or a mother and father figure to help them best make sense of who they are as they grow. It is a framework that has existed for centuries now and a framework that works well, even in a society where marriage is no longer the only family structure where children are raised. That is because it actually means that regardless of what type of family you belong to, there still exists a reference point in law that states the significance of a male role model and a female role model for children. Does this no longer matter? Does gender in marriage—or degendering marriage—if you like, no longer matter? I think it does matter.
But even if I am wrong and even if gender and mother and father role models are no longer of any consequence, the current narrow definition that we have been hearing—that marriage is just about love and equality—provides little opportunity for us to be able to explore the full personal and social consequences of changing the Marriage Act. I read a recent article from Michael Pascoe in Fairfax Media online. He claimed in a so-called open letter to backbenchers that we could 'make our mark in history' by crossing the floor to vote to bring in same-sex marriage. My response to Mr Pascoe—and others who claim that we should just get on with our job—is that I would hope all of us in this government, regardless of whether we personally support same-sex marriage or not, consider support for the plebiscite as much as a matter of personal integrity as party policy.
In the name of deeply held Liberal views about true democracy, freedom and courage of our convictions, I believe we are, in fact, leaving a mark by being prepared to stand up for free speech and free thought and to be prepared to risk a outcome in order to encourage an open and democratic debate. If the Australian people vote yes in a plebiscite, marriage will be changed forever. But in doing so, the nation will have fully worked through the implications of such a fundamental change, rather than having this change foisted upon us because we were too frightened to broaden the debate in a respectful, considered way.
Paul Kelly highlighted many of these issues in The Australian. In November last year, Mr Kelly wrote that:
The consequences far transcend the definition of marriage itself. Same-sex marriage is provoking an upheaval about freedom of conscience, religious liberty and the norms that govern our democratic discourse.
He said:
For Australia and its alleged open spirit of debate, this is an unprecedented situation. It reveals an aggressive secularism dressed in the moral cause of anti-discrimination justice but with a long-run agenda that seeks to transform our values and, ultimately, drive religion into the shadows.
Reading these words made me consider that this debate on both the plebiscite and the issue of same-sex marriage will be a mark of our maturity as a nation. I commend the bill to the House, and urge the Labor Party to do the same.
This is quite a personal debate for a number of people. This is also a debate about our democracy. I would like to start with that argument first of all and with why I am opposed to the plebiscite and I support the amendment that has been moved. Contrary to the claims of the government that this plebiscite they have proposed is about free speech, we are already having a public debate about marriage equality. But the way that the government is going about it is not about free speech. It is about their party room. If the members of the government were serious about supporting our democracy and if they respected our Constitution, then we would not be having this debate. If we had a free vote of members of the 45th parliament and if we had support for a free vote in this parliament, then I believe that we would have marriage equality.
The democracy argument is something that the government is choosing to brush over, which I find quite odd because they are such champions—or believed to be such champions—of our Constitution, of the queen of this parliament. I talk to school groups and they say, 'Why don't we have marriage quality?' I say, 'It's a very good question that you have asked. You need to start lobbying members of the government.' Our Constitution is quite small. It is very hard to change as well. We have tried to change it a couple of times and we have really struggled. But one of the things it actually states very clearly about the role of this parliament is—under part V, powers of the parliament: legislative powers of the parliament—that this parliament has legislative powers in relation to marriage. From the very beginning of this democracy and the creation of the Australian government, the Constitution said that the people in this place have the power to legislate the Marriage Act.
We know that states have tried. They have tried to introduce their own Marriage Act, only to be smacked down by the High Court because it is this place that changes the Marriage Act. Pushing marriage equality off to a plebiscite is really misleading to the Australian people because unless you legislate that the plebiscite will be binding, it is not binding on the people in this place. You can understand why the community is outraged—absolutely outraged—about spending $200 million on a vote which is not binding. They want us to get on with the job that we were elected to do. They want us to respect to our role, to respect the Constitution and to debate the other bill that is before the House around marriage equality. It is time that we did our jobs.
This is nothing more than a very expensive opinion poll. There are two other times we have had plebiscites of this nature in our past. One was around the First World War and conscription. After Billy Hughes's—which to Labor people is not a name you mention—fraught attempts to have conscription, he ended up—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
He was Labor, then he ended up in the Country Party. In fact, he ended up as the federal member for Bendigo for a period of time after leaving the Labor Party. The other time we had a plebiscite of this nature was around our national song—what our most popular song was and what was going to be our national song.
This issue is not like these issues. This issue is about marriage. It is about love. This issue is about rights. It is about respecting and acknowledging two individuals and giving them the opportunity that other people in our population have. If government members really respected our Constitution and this parliament they would allow there to be a free vote. They would not be using their numbers as a government to stop the debate.
A lot of people have contacted me about this issue since before I was a federal member. It is an issue in my electorate, which is a regional electorate, where the popular opinion to support marriage equality has existed for quite some time. We are now at a stage where the vast majority of Australians—over 70 per cent—support same-sex marriage, marriage equality. It has become a very personal debate for so many, because this issue is personal.
It is true that marriage has not always been about love. I grew up in a household where marriage was not a good thing. I grew up in a household where I had a very negative opinion of marriage. My parents were not happily married. When I was a child I thought that marriage was about control. I thought that marriage was entrapment. It was only when I became older that I discovered that it was my parents who had an unhappy marriage. It was only when I was older that I started to understand that two people can love each other and be together—but at the moment it is only if you are a man and a woman. That is why this needs to change.
Marriage, once upon a time, was about property transfers. Marriage, once upon a time, was about ownership. Today it is not. Marriage has changed as we as a society have changed. That is why we need the Marriage Act to reflect today's society, to reflect today's opinions. That is the role of being a representative. It is to understand. It is to listen to the people, before the people, and amend the Marriage Act to reflect what the people believe the Marriage Act should reflect.
I want to share a few personal examples. My former workplace is going through a baby boom. Everyone is having babies! It is beautiful to catch up with them. They are all talking about vomit. They are all talking about baby names. There are five couples who have had babies in the last few months. One of those couples is married. Two other couples have decided not to get married—one had a life celebration, a commitment to each other; they still had the party. One other couple is engaged but they cannot get married. And the other couple has chosen not to get married.
Why I bring that up is because all of them are going through the same conversations. Their families are similar. These children will grow up together. But of the five couples, two couples have been denied a right. This is just one workplace. This is modern Australia. This is modern workplaces. They are celebrating the birth of their babies. They are excited. They are all new parents together. Yet two of those families are denied a right, the right for parents to choose whether they wish to get married or not.
A number of people have written to me and I want to place on the record a couple of their comments, in relation to marriage equality and the plebiscite. Jakob, organiser of the queer community group Friends Alike Bendigo, in central Victoria, called for the plebiscite to be blocked. He said: 'We’ve already seen what lifting the lid on a plebiscite results in, the kind of language and comments, the way in which my community is attacked.' The government has failed to explain how this bill will support my community to achieve marriage equality. It is about delaying an opportunity for my community to have the same rights as others.
Harry wrote to me and said: 'The right to marry is significant to my partner and me because it allows our relationship to be as valid as any other relationship and it celebrates the dignity of the love that we share.' Harry is, actually, Irish and spent most of his life in Ireland but now calls Bendigo home. It was reported that the Irish LGBTI helpline had almost 77,000 people access information and support during their debate. 'As the Irish nation debated the referendum,' Harry said, 'many LGBTI people sought support from the helpline to help cope with the intensity of having their lives in the public debate or to deal with negative attitudes expressed by family members or friends.'
What the government forgets is there are people at the centre of this. This is such a personal and deep issue for so many people. When I was growing up in the eighties and nineties people did come out, but it was hard to come out then. It has always been hard for people who are same sex to come out. This debate, if we go to a plebiscite, will make it even harder for young people. We do not want to go back to those days.
Harry continues: 'My community has fought for its rights for hundreds of years; homophobia and transphobia is no stranger to us,' and it is hurtful, particularly 'when it comes from the very people who are meant to protect us.' He said: 'I want to call on our elected representatives to get this job done; its time Australia.' It is time, Prime Minister, for you to be on the right side of history. Harry is right.
Graeme, who lives in Kennington, said:
My rights shouldn't be decided by the general population. My rights should be the same as everyone else's. I wish this wasn't still an issue. Let's get it done and get it over and done with. My partner recently came out and already feels like an outcast because of his honesty; this would take some of that pressure off for him, and for all of us who just want our equality to be recognized.
He said, 'We want to be equal.' Ann-Maree from Bendigo said, 'Let's just get this done! Let the people speak what is in their hearts. Love is love. Love will triumph.'
Early in the last term the Bendigo Catholic College visited me here at Parliament House. They asked me this question: 'Lisa, why don't we have marriage equality yet?' I said: 'Because we haven't had a free vote.' And they said: 'Well, we're going to have a vote.' They put the question to themselves—'Who here supports marriage equality?'—and every hand went up. Since then our large Catholic community in Bendigo has embraced this and said: 'We want to see our children have the same rights.' You know the community has shifted when people stop you in the street and say: 'I have three children. They are all in loving relationships. I can attend the wedding of two but not the third.' We heard the new member for Longman talk about how one of her sons does not have the same rights as her other sons.
It is time the government started to listen to the people and just get on with it. People in our community are over this debate because they want to see the government do what parliamentarians are elected to do. They know this is about their party room. They know this is about trying to keep together the unhappy marriage of the Liberals and the Nationals. There is no mandate to push forward with the marriage equality/same-sex marriage plebiscite because the numbers just are not there.
I would remind people in this place and in the other place about our Constitution and about the fact that it is up to all of us here to define the Marriage Act. Society has shifted on this issue, as it has done on so many issues. Society will always set the agenda for this place. It does come down to power and how power is being exercised. Pick any issue going back to when the Constitution was created and we have always had a situation where conservative, white middle-aged men have tried to control social issues. Whether it be women's right to choose or marriage, we have always had to stand up and fight for change.
To the LGBTI community in Bendigo I just want to say: 'Let's continue to stand together. Let's continue to rally and call for change.' This is one of those issues where through grassroots action, standing together and telling personal stories we will create change. We have done so in the past and we will again in the future. Marriage equality is personal. It is a right that people are seeking that their relationship be recognised by others. The right to be able not just to say 'I love you' but to commit to somebody under the Marriage Act should be afforded to all adults regardless of gender. This is an issue about rights. This is an issue about equity before the law. This is about saying to a group of Australians: 'We won't discriminate against you anymore.' This is about saying to Ann-Maree, Graeme, Jacob and Harry from my community: 'We recognise your rights and your relationship.' This is about saying to all the United Voice bubs: 'Your parents are equal and will have equal rights.'
I rise to support the bill. At the 2016 federal election the Turnbull government campaigned on the policy of a plebiscite on same-sex marriage. The idea of a plebiscite was widely canvassed during the election and the Attorney-General and Special Minister of State have prepared a bill for this parliament to implement that promise. I support the traditional definition of marriage: that marriage is between a man and a woman. In the plebiscite, I will vote against changing the definition of marriage. However, like my friend the member for Warringah, in the event that the plebiscite is carried nationwide, I will vote to implement the result of the plebiscite.
I believe Australia can have a civilised conversation about marriage. Immediately prior to my election to this House, I was in charge of public policy at the Australian Catholic University. In that context, I organised two respectful conversations on marriage through the lens of the teaching of the Catholic church. Speakers included proponents of changing the definition of marriage such as former New South Wales Labor Premier Kristina Keneally and former Human Rights Commissioner, and now my esteemed colleague, Tim Wilson, the member for Goldstein. The forum also included advocates for traditional marriage such as Bishop Peter Comensoli and journalist Miranda Devine.
The editor-at-large of TheAustralian newspaper, Paul Kelly, was a participant in one of those conversations. He did not take a side but raised questions about some of the consequences for religious freedom of changing the definition of marriage that have not been properly ventilated through the parliamentary process. Paul Kelly noted that changing the definition of marriage means the law of the state and the law of the church would be at odds. He pointed out that, in the event of a change, activists would seek to bring both of these into line by challenging the law of the church. Importantly, Paul Kelly noted that, in the context of this debate, religious freedom means more than just protecting the right of religious celebrants to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.
Both of these conversations can be seen online. I encourage Australians to view them to see that a civil conversation on this issue is possible and desirable. But this takes discernment, urbanity and tolerance on both sides of the debate. My former colleague Dr Michael Casey, now executive director of the PM Glynn Institute, said last week:
We need to re-discover the idea of life in common as a shared landscape, adjust the thresholds so that instead of seeing the person who disagrees with us as an enemy with a malign intent which must be unmasked, we see them as a friend with a different, deeply-held view of the right thing to do.
That is the approach I will take in any of my conduct in this debate and it is an approach I would encourage on all sides.
My view of marriage is a personally held view. One advantage of the plebiscite is that it gives all Australians the chance to have their own say on what is a deeply moral and personal issue. Another advantage of the plebiscite is that, because it is a vote of the Australian people, the result will carry a political weight much greater than a vote in the parliament. Whatever the result, following a plebiscite I think activists on both sides should regard the issue as being settled.
While the plebiscite is not a referendum to change the Constitution, this bill draws on provisions of the Referendum Machinery Provisions Act and the experience of the 1999 republic referendum. As in 1999, the bill envisages the establishment of a 'yes' committee and a 'no' committee, funded equally at $7.5 million, which will produce advertising campaigns to persuade voters to vote for or against same-sex marriage.
I want to speak about the issue of equal public funding of both the 'yes' and 'no' case and draw on my own experience as a member of the government 'no' committee for the 1999 republic referendum to help illustrate why public funding and, in particular, why equal public funding for a plebiscite or a referendum campaign is so important. I also want to make some comments on the abandoned 2013 local government referendum as an illustration of the undesirable practice of unequal and distorted public funding, which should never be repeated.
In the proposed plebiscite, much like a referendum, parliament is putting both the deliberative and the determinative powers over this issue into the hands of the Australian people. When people are to make a decision on an issue they need to be able to make a true choice and inform themselves of various alternatives. Unless they hear both arguments it is difficult to make a true choice.
It can be tempting for those of us engaged in the public debate to assume that the general public is as interested in government, political and policy matters as many of the active participants in the public debate are. But this is not necessarily the case. The republic debate provides a good case study in this regard.
Republicanism can trace its origins to 19th century radicals. It was revived by 1960s intellectuals and some on the Left after the Whitlam dismissal. Modern republicanism dates to the launch of the Australian Republican Movement in 1991. In 1993 the cause was taken up by Prime Minister Keating and in 1998 Prime Minister Howard held a partly-appointed, partly-elected constitutional convention to design a republic model for a referendum.
I am going into this history to illustrate that there had been a long, lively and intense public debate on whether Australia should be a republic. Despite this, the 1999 'yes' committee found that only four months out from the referendum 38 per cent of Australians were unaware of what the referendum they were due to vote on was about.
As honourable members know from our own experience in our own electorates there is always a percentage of people who do not know a federal election is coming or, even after the election campaign has commenced, what date it will be. A referendum or a plebiscite is no different. That is why it is necessary to have publicly funded advertising to create not only awareness of the vote but to enable people, in a deliberative democracy, to hear the arguments both for and against the proposals on which they will vote.
Members of this House will be aware of the difficulties in raising money for election campaigns. It is much more difficult to raise money for a referendum or a plebiscite on a single topic than for a general election. With limited funds it can be more difficult to explain the details of the proposal to members of the public. In a crowded and diffuse news-media landscape it is important to have the funds to provide information to the public. Equal public funding levels the playing field. It means that if one side of the debate is supported by well-funded supporters that side of the debate does not have an unfair advantage over the other side.
In 1999 the 'yes' campaign had a massive advantage over the 'no' campaign. The 'yes' campaign had a substantial business war chest. It had the advantage of the support of most of the media. Without equal public funding in 1999 Australians may only have heard one side. In a deliberative democracy this is unfair and unjust.
John Howard's innovation of an equally funded 'yes' and 'no' committee to prepare an advertising campaign to put arguments to Australians before they cast their vote to change the Constitution was a positive development in helping to ensure Australians have heard the arguments for and against change. It should become a permanent feature of the referendum architecture in Australia, and I am pleased to see it appear here in the plebiscite bill.
While 1999 provides an example of good practice, an example of bad practice was the then Gillard Labor government's decision to provide unequal funding for the 'yes' and 'no' cases at a proposed referendum in 2013 to recognise local government in the Constitution. On that occasion Labor proposed to give the 'yes' case $10 million and the 'no' case $500,000.
The 'yes' campaign would also have been boosted by a bonus of $10 million of ratepayer money from the Australian Local Government Association and an $11.6 million national civics education campaign in support of the 'yes' case. That was a total of $31.6 million of public funding for the 'yes' case and $500,000 for the 'no' case.
Labor's actions at the local government referendum represent an attempt to rort the democratic process—a situation which should never be allowed to happen again. When the Australian people have to vote at a plebiscite, as in this case, they need to be able to hear the arguments for and against a proposal. That is why I am such a strong supporter of equal public funding for this plebiscite and for all referenda to alter the Constitution.
There has been some public commentary opposing equal public funding for the same-sex marriage plebiscite suggesting that there are no checks and balances on what could be said in a plebiscite campaign and that all of the arguments advanced by activists opposed to same-sex marriage will find their way into government advertising. I hope to show that the regulatory architecture established by this bill and the experience of the referendum in 1999 mean that this will not necessarily be the case.
In early 1999 I was appointed by Prime Minister Howard to serve as a member of a ten-person committee comprising delegates from the constitutional convention, at which I had been an elected delegate, to develop an advertising campaign to support the 'no' vote at the republic referendum to be held later that year.
Each committee was given $7½ million to conduct an advertising campaign. Guidelines for the expenditure of money were issued, including the need to abide by competitive tendering processes and the need to submit a budget to the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications—the MCGC.
Advertisements needed to be submitted to the MCGC for final approval to ensure they met the government's advertising guidelines. I recall several instances where our campaign team had to negotiate advertisements with the MCGC. I recall, in some instances, the language of the advertisements were modified as a result of the MCGC processes, and the exchanges on all these points were robust.
In addition to the MCGC oversight of the committee's work was undertaken by the Referendum Taskforce, the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, the Australian Electoral Commission and, ultimately, the Federal Court. At one point or another all of these bodies were called upon to rule on elements of the campaign by one side or the other.
I make these points to illustrate that the official 'yes' and 'no' committees in 1999 were not a free-for-all. While there was a chance to put forward a wide range of arguments, there was no sense in which the committees conducted themselves in an atmosphere of completely unconstrained free speech. Similar mechanisms in the bill before the House and guidelines to be issued by the Special Minister of State will provide similar protections in a plebiscite.
I wish to make one final observation about something that was part of the architecture in the 1999 republic referendum—and, indeed, every referendum since 1912—but which has been left out of this proposal, and that is the publication of a yes/no booklet. As part of any proposal to alter the Constitution parliamentarians who have voted for or against the proposal are tasked with preparing a case of no more than 2,000 words for each side of the argument. Both cases appear in a booklet along with the text of the proposed alteration. That booklet is mailed to every elector within 14 days of the referendum.
I recall in 1999 that research undertaken for the No committee indicated that Australians took the Yes/No booklet very seriously. They took the chance to read and reflect on the arguments it contained. Since 1999, there has been an attack by some commentators, particularly in academic circles, on the Yes/No booklet. Some think it should be dispensed with. However, in an age when we are overburdened by electronic communications, receiving personally addressed printed material has a greater impact and perhaps underscores the seriousness of the decision to be made.
Again, at the time of the local government referendum, Labor changed the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act to weaken the effect of the Yes/No booklet so that the Yes/No booklet would be sent as unaddressed mail to every household, not to every elector. This meant that it had less chance of being read and more chance of being chucked out with the Coles catalogue.
I regret that the authors of this bill did not include a yes/no booklet in the suite of measures to enact the plebiscite. I note the cost of publishing the booklet but I also note that voters appreciate the chance to quietly analyse the arguments it contains.
In conclusion, the package of equal funding administered by a Yes and No committee should allow Australians sufficient information to make a true choice on the issue of same-sex marriage. I commend the bill to the House.
It gives me great pleasure to contribute to this debate and once again reaffirm my support for same-sex marriage. I have voted in this place previously in support of this issue. I have been in this place a fair time and I do not think I have ever come across a proposition so ludicrous as the one that is confronting us in the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016—that we should go to a plebiscite on something that this parliament should decide on. We do not have plebiscites on whether we go to war. We do not have plebiscites on whether we need to change Medicare. We do not have plebiscites on education. We do not have plebiscites on any other issue which this parliament makes decisions about. Yet, we are being asked by the government to accept a proposition that we should, as a matter of course to test public opinion, have a plebiscite. We are elected into this place by the people of Australia to make laws. We are elected into this place as parliamentarians in a democracy to make decisions. What the government is doing here is quite the opposite. It is refusing to accept its responsibility to allow the parliament to make a decision that is enforceable about same-sex marriage and marriage equality.
In my community, there is a great deal of concern about the direction in which this debate has been heading. What is the point of forcing 15 million Australians to vote when Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, cannot even guarantee that the members of the government, the Liberal and National parties, would vote in support of the outcome of that plebiscite in this parliament? We already know how weak he is as a leader, and we saw that writ large yesterday—in fact, shockingly so—in Senate estimates when the Minister for Defence was asked: who is responsible in the Department of Defence; who is the senior minister? There does not appear to be one. Apparently, the Prime Minister is not able to arbitrate the responsibilities of the Minister for Defence, the Leader of the House or Minister Tehan in their respective portfolios. He cannot even do that, let alone have the courage and the spine to stand up to his party room, express his own personal opinion, tell them what it is and get their support.
He knows that the extreme right-wing elements of his party will not support him. It would not matter what decision was taken by the community at large, a number of them have determined that, regardless of the public opinion which might be expressed through a plebiscite, they have no intention, ever, of supporting the proposition of marriage equality. That says more about the Prime Minister and the coalition than it does about the Australian population. How can we have confidence in a government when the Prime Minister, whose own views are widely known about marriage equality, cannot even lead his own government to a position of support for the proposition in this parliament? That speaks volumes about the incapacity of the Prime Minister and his weakness as a leader.
I also think we need to be contemplating the impact of a potentially very divisive plebiscite—and I think it would be. There is no question in my mind about the hurt that will be perpetrated upon family members in the LGBTQI community. They will be offended. I have some correspondence from people I know well, who are partners and who have small child. I would like you to hear what they say. Kirsty writes:
Amber—
Kirsty's partner—
and I have lived in the Darwin Rural area for 8 years and we have a 5 year old daughter.
The plebiscite concerns us greatly as we believe that in our daughters first week of primary school in 2017 she will be exposed to a campaign the shows her family to be lesser than all of her classmates.
We have already seen evidence that the "no" propaganda will be particular hateful and this material will be around and circulated during her primary school and formative years. We know that marriage has nothing to do with if / how we can raise a family, but unfortunately this is the debate this is already being had.
Our daughter Saige is gorgeous but very shy child with a big open heart.
I want to do everything, like every Mum would, to protect her from potential bullying and harassment from classmates, teachers who have a differing opinion on our family, other families and the media.
My concern is also with the mental health of my friends in the LGBTQ community, I've already seen firsthand the distress it is causing our friends.
The campaign on social media, the talkback radio and the ongoing belief that we need to justify our relationships is causing harm.
All of this is only the beginning of a hateful debate in our community.
I urge all our members of Parliament to abandon the plebiscite and have a free vote.
Hear, hear, I say! Hear, hear! The Prime Minister believes this. The Prime Minister wants this, but he is too gutless to enforce it. He does not have the leadership skills or the capacity in his own party room to carry the day. Such is his weakness. It is evidenced every day at the dispatch box. Every day he comes into this parliament, he gives further evidence to his weakness as a leader.
Another constituent of mine wrote to me and said:
I am in a same sex relationship of sixteen years, my wife and I are absolutely unequivocally prepared to be patient and wait for marriage equality in Australia if it means hate speech and slander are prevented from flourishing and prospering during a plebiscite campaign, and that the lives of our fellow Australians are spared significant harms that will be inflicted upon them.
This is a widespread view. It is not something which is made up. These are Australian families. There is a wide-eyed view held by some in the community—indeed, some who profess faith may have a legitimate view about their faith, and the faith based view that they have might be that they oppose marriage equality—but I ask this question: what are the common forms of relationship in this country?
My own relationship, for example, is regarded by some as illegitimate. My partner and I have been living together for 32 years. We have four children. Is there something wrong with that? There are some who would say there is, because they say that the only way you should have children is in a marriage. That, of course, is absurd, as most Australians would admit. It is just as absurd to deny the possibility of two people of the same sex having a relationship. It is a matter of fact. It is not a matter of contention. We know this is happening, yet some, in their wisdom and perhaps delusion, say to us that it is not appropriate that they should have the same rights as other Australians to cohabit and that, really, it is unseemly or inappropriate for members of the same sex to bring up children or be married. In the case of my partner, Elizabeth, and I, we chose not to be married. We took a choice. I am not opposed to marriage—fill your boots, I say—but we have taken a decision, just as there will be members of the LGBTQ community who may take a similar decision, but what they want is the right to be married. That is all. And, if they choose to be married as a result of that right being given to them, good on them. They too can fill their boots. But it is not right to say that they, among all other Australians, should be excluded the right or the possibility of being married.
No-one seeks to compel a church, or any person really, but particularly a church or church based organisations, to carry out services they do not believe in—no-one; least of all me—but I absolutely believe in the right of people to have that choice. When you think about where we are at this time of our history, so much change has taken place over the last 200 years. Belief systems have differed, the role of churches has changed, the moral leadership in the community has moved, the discussion and the debate has changed, and people who were pilloried and jailed for being gay are now accepted as equals in the community, as they should be. Why then can't we accept that they have an equal right to make a choice about being married? It is a very simple question. And why does the government want to insist that the decision on the merits or otherwise of those relationships, and their right to be married and to raise children, should be put in the hands of those who do not believe in them? Why should we? It is a discriminatory action to say that one set of Australians, such as these, should be treated so differently from another.
One of my constituents who wrote to me, in a very well thought out and, indeed, very cogent response to this issue, was Peta Phelan. She does not mind me using her name. She wrote:
The momentous social and economic burdens of such an action—
that is, the plebiscite—
cannot be ignored. Consider the financial costs of running a non-binding, unnecessary and irrelevant national opinion poll, at approximately 200 million dollars—
more or less—
The social, financial and economic burdens that have not been discussed are the following:
and she makes four points—
I ask the Prime Minister: when you are at home at night and you are contemplating what is right and wrong, do you actually think about these issues? Do you have it on your conscience—the impact of the decisions we take in this parliament and the possibilities of how the decisions you make might affect these people or the rest of the Australian community, or the cost involved? How can you, as the leader of this country, stand up here and say, as you are doing, that these things are irrelevant and inconsequential; they do not matter; what matters is the right to give every Australian the responsibility to have a vote on something that will be non-binding and irrelevant? I think it is despicable that we go through this charade of having a debate about something which the government does not believe in.
I rise to speak on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. I do not intend to dwell on the substantive question of same-sex marriage at any length. Those in my electorate know well that I made my position clear both before I was preselected in 2012, again before the general election in 2013 and, of course, subsequently, in the lead-up to the most recent election in 2016.
This is a matter on which decent people can differ. Just like the former Prime Minister and his sister have different views on this question, so too do I and my sister. Indeed, my sister has told me that if the plebiscite gets up she will forcefully campaign on behalf of the yes case. I suppose that is the point: through this mechanism we are seeking to provide an opportunity for decent people with different views to argue their case.
I think this parliament does its best work when it brings Australians together. The counter is not true: we do our worst work when we seek to divide Australians, when we take action which is divisive. So what has saddened me most deeply about this debate is that we have before us an opportunity to unite Australians on a very difficult question. We have an opportunity to unite Australians and to come to an outcome on which the 24 million Australians take some ownership.
I will unpack that a little. If we are to have a parliamentary free vote, which those opposite so vehemently argue for—I will mention that I am concerned about their motivation in that regard; I think it is born of base political advantage—but if we are to have that vote, I am very concerned that we will end up with a situation where very many Australians will not accept the legitimacy of that outcome. That has me concerned. On the other hand, if we have a national plebiscite vote where 24 million Australians are engaged in the political process—not 226 privileged politicians—then there will be a sense of ownership of the national outcome.
Those opposite are very quick to suggest that this is a non-binding process which will not bind those in this place. I say this: having asked the Australian people to cast their vote on this question, it would be folly for anyone in this place not to respect it. That is clear. So what we would have if we proceeded with this plebiscite is a process of ownership of this question by the Australian people.
If I could play it out: if we go through a plebiscite and the Australian people support a change and it is subsequently legislated in this place and across the way, then I am confident that those people who share my view—that is, that there is no need to change the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act—would accept that outcome, as they do every three years or so when those that support my particular brand of politics either win or lose in an election. It is accepted. There has been a exercise in democracy and there will be that sense of ownership. I am very concerned because we had created an architecture for a community vote which would have the effect of bringing our nation together on this very difficult question.
That is the first thing which has saddened me about this course. It is a massive lost opportunity to unite Australians on this difficult social question. The second thing that has saddened me—and it has saddened and hurt me most deeply—is the suggestion that we cannot have this debate because, by the nature of the debate itself, we will harm our fellow Australians. During the course of the recent election the candidates in my seat from the Xenophon team, the Greens and the Labor Party were very strong in suggesting that we simply cannot have this debate—Australians would not respect the nature of the debate and would participate in a debate which would ultimately be hurtful and harmful. On every occasion that I got the chance, I would indicate to my opponents that I had greater faith in the Australian people than they did. I thought that in this great country of ours we could have a debate like this in a respectful way. I would be the first person to shout down anyone arguing the no case who argued it from a position of discrimination or of making a hurtful attack on a fellow Australian. I would expect those opposite to do exactly the same with respect to anyone advocating the yes case in an inappropriate way.
What concerns me about the position we find ourselves in is that there is a suggestion now in the Australian discourse that, if the question is difficult—if there is the risk of harm in a debate—we simply should not have the debate. I think that is the first time I have heard this argument raised. A former Prime Minister would often say to us that the answer to a very bad argument is, of course, a very good one. The answer to a hurtful argument is, of course, a careful and respectful one. Others have made this connection, but I make this point: if we cannot have a debate on this question, which I began by saying is a difficult question on which decent people can differ, how are we going to have a national debate about the recognition of Australia's Indigenous peoples in the Australian Constitution? There will be people in this country who espouse racism and hate during that debate and it will be incumbent on every single Australian to shout down those arguments. But, if we are going to close down a debate because there is the risk of harm to Australians during the course of the debate, I think we will have closed off a whole section of civil political discourse that we can ever have in this country.
That brings me back to why that argument is used. That argument is used because those opposite do not want this question put to the Australian people right here, right now. They do not want it put to the Australian people because they are concerned about what the Australian people will say when they deliver their verdict on this question—and we should never run from democracy and we should take every opportunity to empower the Australian people, not disempower them. Either those opposite are scared of what the verdict might be or they see a political advantage in continuing this debate. If we are talking about harm to those in the LGBTIQ community, I think there is a lot more harm in dragging this debate out.
There is an advocate in my community on this question who is very high profile and very forthright. I met with her before we had adopted a policy of a plebiscite and said that I would support in the party room the idea of her casting a vote that would equal the value of my vote. She could cast her vote on 11 February next year. She and her long-time domestic partner could be married by March. But those opposite do not want that to happen. They see a political advantage in dragging this question out. They see an opportunity for Bill Shorten to enter the Lodge on the back of this question—on the back of the hurt that they are going to occasion the likes of my constituent over the next while, instead of the marriage that she could have in March were the question answered in the affirmative.
I think this is a really sad day for this place. It is a sad day for the democracy of this nation. We should all reflect on the fact that, with respect, none of our political careers are worth occasioning harm to people in our community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, I have long been a strong advocate for marriage equality—and I think it is just that: a matter of equality. I do find that the current situation, where the Marriage Act explicitly demands that marriage can only be between a man and woman, is legislated discrimination. We have indeed come a very long way to deal with legislated discrimination in this country, but the Marriage Act still stands out as a glaring example and one that this parliament could fix and fix very quickly.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would also be aware that I have long been very critical of a plebiscite and in particular of the way this plebiscite has been proposed, as a non-binding opinion poll. I think it is the case that a plebiscite would be a very divisive moment in our nation's history, and it would be very costly. I have heard figures of up to $200 million. I would have only supported a plebiscite if it had genuinely been the only pathway to marriage equality, but, of course, we have another pathway available to us right now, and that is a parliamentary vote. So long as we have that other pathway to marriage equality, that is where I will put my support.
I am respectful of those people who would disagree with me. There are many Australians who do not want the Marriage Act changed. There are many Australians who passionately believe—they have a heartfelt belief—that marriage must remain only between a man and a woman. I respect that and I respect what they have to say, but I disagree with them. I disagree with the opponents of marriage equality in a number of ways. It is simply not the case that a public debate would be respectful. Unfortunately, there are what I will characterise as people with perhaps overly strong, even extreme, views on both sides of the argument who would cross the line and act in ways or say things which would be improper. Because I am a strong advocate for marriage equality, I suppose that is why I am on the receiving end of some of that commentary from people who oppose marriage equality. There has been a lot of correspondence to my office—a lot of emails, letters and phone calls from people who would say things like, 'Homosexuals are deviants,' or, 'Bringing in marriage equality would put us on a slippery slope to bestiality,' and all sorts of other bizarre arguments are made.
It is simply not the case that we can have any confidence that a public debate would be respectful. It is simply not the case that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. We seem to have forgotten in this debate that the Marriage Act was only changed as recently as 2004 during the period of Prime Minister John Howard. So, in other words, up until 2004 the federal Marriage Act did not explicitly require that marriage be between a man and a woman. So to say that the Marriage Act has always been the way it is is just not right. It is just incorrect, because in 2004, not with a plebiscite but with a simple bill through this place, the Marriage Act was changed.
It is simply not the case that we are like Ireland and that, like Ireland, it needs to be decided by the people. The fact is: because of Ireland's constitutional framework, genuinely the only pathway to marriage equality was indeed a popular vote by the people. But in our case it is not something that is addressed by the Constitution. It is something which is only covered in the Marriage Act, which is the work of this parliament—to make such an act, to amend that act as it did in 2004 and to amend it again, as it might do in 2016.
It is simply not the case that to not have a plebiscite would be undemocratic. While I respect the argument that is made by people who say that, I disagree with them. I think they are wrong. The fact is we are a representative democracy, not a participatory democracy. In other words, it is our job. When we are elected it is our job to come into this place and to represent our community. That is the way our democratic system works in this country. It is simply not a part of our system that we would routinely—or very often at all—go back to the public to find out what they think, because they have already told us what they think by electing us to come to Canberra and to represent them. We do not have a plebiscite before we declare war. We did not have a plebiscite in 2004 to change the Marriage Act. It is a very, very rare thing. That is because it is simply not part of our democratic system. We are, as I say, a representative democracy; we are not a participatory democracy.
It is not the case that the government must do nothing if it cannot deliver on its election promise of a plebiscite. The fact is political parties and candidates make all sorts of promises before an election—hopefully, in good faith; I certainly do. There is no doubt that the members of the Liberal and National parties promised in good faith that there would be a plebiscite. But if you cannot deliver on an election promise for a legitimate reason, then it is our job to find another pathway. For example, with superannuation reform, the members of the Liberal and National parties in good faith went to the election and promised there would be a particular set of changes to superannuation in this country. But the parliament formed; the numbers were clear, both within the government and between the government, the opposition and the crossbench, and it was clear that that reform could not be delivered as promised. So another pathway was chosen. So, too, in this case. The government made that promise in good faith, but it will not be able to deliver on that promise, it seems, so it needs to find another pathway. Politics is about the art of the possible. It is not about running into a roadblock and stopping dead in your tracks. It is about finding a way around the roadblock—finding a another pathway. Of course, a vote in this place this year is that obvious other pathway.
It is simply not the case that this matter is about children. I have noticed that the opponents of marriage equality are, more and more, bringing their part of the debate back to children. They are creating this impression that, if we have marriage equality, gays and lesbians will start caring for children and having children, and that would be bad for children. What the whole line of argument completely and utterly misses is that in this country currently there are thousands upon thousands of children being brought up in same-sex families. Indeed, when I look at the 2011 Census figures there were 6,300 children of same-sex couples. That was five years ago. Interestingly, that figure in 2011 was much greater than the Census before that. We can, I think, quite reasonably make the judgement that the figure is growing strongly and that this year's Census will show an even much greater figure. When you consider that this is one of those sorts of things which would tend to be underreported, I would go so far as to say that the number of children of same-sex couples in this country now is multiple that 6,300 that were identified five years ago. In other words, regardless of whether or not we change the Marriage Act, there are already many thousands of children of same-sex couples and there will continue to be many thousands of children of same-sex couples. So the debate about the plebiscite, the debate about whether or not to change the Marriage Act, has nothing to do with children—nothing at all.
I refute in the strongest possible terms this argument that is sometimes made that gays and lesbians are bad parents, or would be bad parents. That is just simply not the case. Unless children come through previous relationships, if a gay or lesbian couple want to have a child it is, obviously, not something that can happen by accident. It is something that they have to put a large amount of thought and effort into to make it happen. In my experience, gays and lesbians generally make very good parents. In fact, a woman I know who I would even go so far as to say is the best mother I know is in a lesbian relationship.
It is not about whether children are in a family with heterosexual parents or a family with same-sex parents; it is about whether or not it is a loving family and whether or not all their needs are being met. That is what matters. We have many excellent heterosexual parents and some dreadful heterosexual parents. We have many wonderful gay and lesbian parents and some dreadful gay and lesbian parents. It is not about whether the parents are heterosexual, gay or lesbian. It is about whether they are good parents, whether they love their children, whether they create a loving environment for their children, whether all the needs of their children are met. That is what matters.
I would go further and say a parent does not even have to be part of a couple. There are some wonderful single mums out there who are doing a great job. There are some dreadful single mums out there doing a terrible job. There are some wonderful single dads out there doing a great job, and there are some dreadful dads out there doing a lousy job. It is not about the relationship. It is not about whether they are heterosexual parents, gay parents, lesbian parents or single parents. It is about whether or not they love their children. That is the only thing that matters. And I make the point again: there are already gay and lesbian parents and there will continue to be gay and lesbian parents. That has nothing to do with whether or not the Marriage Act is changed.
I will talk raw politics for a moment. The pathway that I keep referring back to is obviously one of the private member's bills that are before the House. The Labor Party, to their credit—and I do not think it is politics by the Labor Party; I think it is well intentioned—have a private member's bill, and there is a crossbench private member's bill. When this plebiscite is dead and buried, for the life of me, I will not be able to understand why at least a few government members would not cross the floor and support that crossbench private member's bill to suspend standing orders to bring that bill on for debate, to put the question and decide the matter this year. Now, sure, while the coalition party are still pursuing a plebiscite, let them continue to pursue the plebiscite. I do not begrudge them that. But, when the plebiscite is dead and buried and there is only one pathway open to the government, I would suggest to honourable members of the government that at least a few of you do the right thing and support the bill and bring it on.
If you are in this place for policy outcomes, if you are in this place in the pursuit of the public interest, then that is what you will do. If you are in this place just because you are another party hack who got elected because you are party hack, and you come in here and are happy to take the gold coin but, at the end of the day, only care about your self-interest or your political party's interests, then so be it—but you are letting the public down. But I do not think that will be the case. I think there are enough good men and women, people of good heart, in the government who, when the plebiscite is over, or when the matter of the plebiscite is finished, will see the sense in supporting us on the crossbench and dealing with the matter.
Some people say that, if they do that, that will bring about the destruction of the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. It will not bring about the destruction of the Prime Minister. In fact, it could be the saving of the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister, to his credit, is sticking to his election promise. I do not agree with it. But, to his credit, the Prime Minister is sticking to his election promise. When he cannot deliver on his election promise, if a few of his party cross the floor and help us bring on a private member's bill, he will still have been true to his word. We will get the reform in the public interest, and then the matter will be finished and we can all move on. It may well be the saving of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. It is at least the least bad course of action that he might confront.
Deputy Speaker Mitchell, thanks for letting me have my say. I will obviously not support this plebiscite. I will continue to prosecute the case for a vote in this parliament and I will continue to lobby members of the government to support the Labor bill or perhaps, more likely, the crossbench private member's bill.
I am very happy to speak on this bill, the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016, today. This issue is one of the more pressing on our social conscience. It has been prominent in the political world for months and will be until resolved.
In my role as a local representative, last year I conducted a survey of my local electorate on a number of issues. Every home and business in the electorate received a paper copy of the form, and it was also available online. The purpose was to get a complete snapshot of the views of local residents. We received a response from 10 per cent of all homes.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, of the 50 questions, the one on same-sex marriage raised the most comments. Of these thousands of responses on the question on marriage equality, those for and against came out at 50 to 50—to be precise, 49.53 to 50.47. This is a clear statement of where we are now. No doubt 20 or 30 years ago the result would have been very different.
What is also clear is that, on this issue, the poles are far apart. A large proportion of the supporters of marriage equality view its opponents as troglodytes who are stuck in the 19th century, have no sense of fairness and cannot apply the concepts of equality and nondiscrimination to the right to marry, while the opponents of same-sex marriage see its supporters as leftie troublemakers with no sense of decency, out to destroy millennia of the family unit.
As our former prime minister Tony Abbott has said, there are good and decent people on both sides of the debate, and neither should be thought less of when the decision is finally made. Regardless of the outcome of this debate, throughout our society it is essential that both sides recognise the strength and validity of their opponents' principles. Respect is crucial. This is a moral issue that goes to the belief systems that people have cherished for their entire lives. Such views are held for a particular reason—be it personal, religious or cultural—and are very hard to change. Whatever one's individual view, we must recognise the strength of the views of the other side. Seeking to demean the opposition is wrong. I understand that strongly held views, devout perspectives, live deeply within our psyche where emotions live. It is important that emotions do not cloud this debate. That said, I would like to focus my attention on one particular argument that has been around religious opposition to same-sex marriage. In my electorate I have had a lot of representations from people with religious backgrounds, who hold deep concerns about how same-sex marriage will affect their church. This is a vital issue. The separation of church and state is essential. This is a two-way street. Our politics is based on this notion, as are our current marriage laws. Churches currently have the right to place stipulations on those they choose to marry, and these are adhered to without calls of discrimination. In the event of marriage equality being successful in Australia, this distinction should remain. No church or institution should be forced to perform same-sex marriages, and any debate regarding individual religions' attitude to gay marriage should be confined to a discussion within that religion. This chamber is no place for a debate on the social decisions of individual religious groups.
This model was adopted in the UK, where they passed a similar law in 2013. Some churches jumped at the opportunity of growing their flock and immediately opened their doors to same-sex unions—for example, the Anglican Church, after a period of deep consideration, then decided to conduct same-sex services. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church decided to stay with their doctrine.
The opposite of this acceptance and celebration, unfortunately, was on display in my electorate recently. Election literature was handed out at Eastwood polling booth which carried a host of insults and doomsday predictions should certain parties who support gay marriage be voted in. It described homosexuality as a 'death curse' and suggested the election of some political parties would lead to rape in women's toilets. It recommended voting for the Christian Democratic Party, although the Christian Democratic Party have denied any knowledge of the leaflets and they carried no authorisation. Regardless of your stance on the issues at hand, these opinions are simply not welcome—not in Bennelong and not anywhere in Australia. I was very proud to run a positive campaign and had good relations with every one of my fellow candidates. As a result, the election was largely friendly, good natured and good to be a part of. Comments like these leave a bad taste in our mouths and undermine all the good work that has been done.
Part of the government's role is to provide the conditions for a society where everyone is equal and no-one feels discriminated against. These two central tenets of our society must be maintained through this debate and afterwards as well. We must respect each other though we disagree, and people must accept the decision once we have a final decision.
I would like to leave this debate with one thought. Our government has always aspired to be the guardians of equality in this country. However, what has been viewed as equality in one generation has not always been seen in the same light subsequently. Many shameful moments in our history have been accepted at the time with blinkered views of equality, and other shameful moments have come about because previous policies have not been updated to stay in step with the views of the day. Change to these laws is inevitable. This debate 30 years ago would not have been contentious. In comparison, the changing of the law in 2004 raised a discussion, but not one as all pervasive as the one we find ourselves in now. It is only a matter of time for equality and the elimination of discrimination that will welcome all people to the right to marry.
It is a privilege to be able to speak on this matter and, after many years of discussions within my community, to now be able to bring those thoughts to the chamber. In theory, having a public, mass vote on something is a nice idea. I can understand why people have been attracted to it. It sounds democratic. It sounds logical to give one vote one value—something New South Wales Liberals still seem to be struggling with! But it does sound sensible until you think about the months of campaigning that it would trigger. When you think about that, you realise that the concerns about the impact the debate will have on members of the LGBTQI community, their families and their friends—in other words, all of us—you have to say no to a plebiscite.
In my inaugural speech, like many others on my side and just as many on the other side, I spoke of the need for this parliament to tackle mental health issues. That, for me, becomes a really fundamental issue when thinking about a plebiscite. Let us look first at what children who live in same-sex parent families have said. The message they have been giving me is, 'Don't make us feel different.' Growing up is already a struggle. Having one more thing that singles you out as being in some way different from the majority can be really tough. Like many Labor MPs, I met Eddie when his family came to visit parliament a few weeks ago, as part of the Rainbow Families connection. He explained to me that—having experienced bullying previously, having changed schools and now being really happy in a new school—he did not think he deserved to be made to feel different or have extra attention put onto his two mums. Eddie's story is obviously very compelling, and I congratulate him for speaking out and coming and meeting with us.
My visitors that day also included Blue Mountains same-sex families. While in my electorate we live in a very harmonious community, these families are always aware of the dangers for their children in being singled out. And that is the thing—it only takes a tiny minority of people to do shocking harm and psychological damage to others. Clearly, there have been comments about children being raised in same-sex marriage in this chamber. For me, it is really important that every child has the best chance to be in a loving, secure family situation. I am very pleased we were able to listen to those who were most impacted, and I would like to think that Eddie's words have been heard. I should add that I am bit uncomfortable standing here as any sort of judge on the way anyone else raises their children. It is one of the most difficult things to do and to do well, and I think most of us do the very best we can.
If people could read some of the emails that my office has received and I have personally read and responded to—although there are some where I have chosen not to respond, and it is not a majority and not many of them come from my own electorate—they would have a better understanding of the reservations and fears that we have, not just about having a debate but about funding that debate. I listened to the member for Denison as he quoted some of the hurtful things that have already been said about same-sex marriage and same-sex families, and I commend him for putting those on the record. I will choose not to repeat those things. I am reluctant to repeat them, because they are so hurtful.
I know not everyone has the same view on marriage equality or on the plebiscite. Recently, at the Bilpin flower show, I met a cross-section of my electorate's LGBTQI community. It is a very small community in Bilpin, only around 2,000 people. Among them is Miranda Fair, a drag queen whose floral headdress is a feature of the opening of this community flower show. I met Miranda and several other individuals and couples who wanted to speak with me about the plebiscite. Not everyone asked me to oppose the plebiscite. I said to them all what I have written and said to many of my constituents: the dangers of the damage that a debate about same-sex marriage could bring outweigh any other arguments in favour of it.
Ken and Tony are residents of the upper Blue Mountains and they have previously been mentioned in this place by the Leader of the Opposition. They have a long, committed relationship and they want the chance to marry. When Ken urgently needed a kidney transplant, his partner was able to give him one, but he cannot have his partner's hand in marriage. They do not see a plebiscite, though, as the best way forward. Again, this is a couple living in a very harmonious and accepting community, but they fear the consequences of a plebiscite.
We have heard a lot about how well the Irish plebiscite went, so I was particularly grateful for the research that was partly funded by Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays Australia, which gave us some tangible data on what actually happened in Ireland. It is very hard for us, from a distance, to judge what it is like on the ground there. I was interested to note that the survey of more than 1,600 Irish LGBTI people found that only a minority of the respondents would have been prepared to face the referendum again if they did not know it would achieve a successful outcome.
The impacts are actually scarier than that. As the first study of the negative social and psychological impacts of the 'no' campaign in Ireland, it found that 75 per cent of participants often or always felt angry when they were exposed to campaign messages from the 'no' campaign before the referendum. It found that 80 per cent felt upset by the 'no' campaign materials and two-thirds felt anxious or distressed. You have to wonder why, knowing the sorts of impacts that the referendum had, we would deliberately choose to go down a path that would create more anxiety and distress for people. Even more telling, younger LGBTI people scored lower on psychological wellbeing compared with older people, including feeling anxious and afraid.
I had a conversation at the Bilpin flower show with one gentleman who just wants marriage equality. It does not matter to him what has to happen to get there. But, as I said to him, he and I are not young; we are probably able to have a robust discussion and not have any consequences as a result of it. I asked him to think about himself as a teenager or a young man trying to work out his sexuality and struggling with coming out: would it have been as easy for him back in those days?
The importance of this survey is that we do have data. When asked if they were prepared to face a referendum campaign again, 30 per cent of people gave positive answers, 15 per cent were undecided and the majority, 54.5 per cent, responded negatively. In fact, the largest single group, 36 per cent, said they would be 'not at all happy' to have to go through a campaign again.
In terms of the fear that people have about the consequences of a funded damaging debate, this argument cuts both ways. I spoke to the mother of a young man who is studying to be a minister. She is equally concerned about the divisive debate. Her concern is: what will people say about her son, who has his own views about marriage equality? Will he also be vilified in some way? I think we always have to talk about what might happen as a result of the minority but might affect the majority.
At this point I would like to make clear that I do believe in marriage and I certainly believe in same-sex marriage. For me, it is very simple. I have two children, both in their 20s, neither married. I wish for them the long-term, stable relationship that I have had—I have been married for nearly 30 years. They have seen the importance of that marriage; that the civil bond helps bring our society some stability. No, it is not for everybody. I am equally respectful of people who can maintain long relationships without the bonds of marriage. But I want my children to have a choice. Should they decide to marry someone of the same sex—should that be the person they fall in love with—I want them to have the same sort of long-term relationship that so many of us do. I do not think it matters which sex they choose to marry. What matters is that they find someone they want to be committed to. For me it is very simple. I put my 'mum' hat on and say: what do I want for my children? I am not sure why it is so hard for some people to see it that way but I do respect that there are a range of views. In particular I respect that for some people their position is tied to their religion. That is why I completely agree that, on the issue of marriage equality, churches should be able to make their own decisions about whether they marry same-sex couples within their church.
Let us return to the issue of the plebiscite. There are so many practical reasons why we do not need a plebiscite. John Howard did not have one when he change the Marriage Act in 2004. It is hard to see why, when you have changed the original piece of legislation, a change back should require a different sort of process. No other form of discrimination has required a plebiscite. We have not needed one when we were changing legislation to ensure that women could not be discriminated against, to ensure that old people could not be discriminated against and to ensure that people of other nationalities could not be discriminated against, so I do not see why we need one here. This is a human rights issue.
Another practical reason why we do not need a plebiscite is that polls have already shown that people do want marriage equality. That is really all this is: a great big opinion poll. Why do we need another opinion poll, particularly one that is going to have the price tag that this one does and particularly when the outcome will not be binding on anybody? We have already heard that there are a number of people who have said they will not be swayed by the findings of a plebiscite and that they will perhaps be more interested in what happens in their own electorates than what happens at the national level or more interested in what happens in one state than what happens in another. It is very hard to argue the need for a $200 million hit to the budget for a plebiscite that no-one has to be bound by.
More importantly, we are a representative democracy and we simply do not need a plebiscite legislatively. We actually need to do the job that we are paid to do, which is to make decisions and legislate. That is why we should be having a vote in this chamber. The issue of marriage equality and the issue of the plebiscite were very well explored in the lead-up to the most recent election, but we have only just been elected. I think we, as local members, are incredibly informed about how our community feels. In my electorate in particular, the Blue Mountains Regional Business Chamber is very supportive of marriage equality. They see that this is actually an opportunity for them and have established a pink chapter. They hope that marriage equality becomes law soon so that the Blue Mountains can become a place not just for opposite-sex couples to get married but for same-sex couples to get married. It has to be one of the most beautiful places to have your wedding.
In Mental Health Month, we really need to ask ourselves why we would consider deliberately spending money to do damage to people for something that simply does not need to happen. I can think of some pretty obvious places for that $200 million to go. Interestingly, $200 million is the same amount of funding that is used to keep 100 headspace sites operational for a couple of years. They are sites that are designed to help young people who are feeling anxiety, depression or some other form of mental ill health. It is a place where they can go and get help. That would be a much better place to be spending this money than on a plebiscite.
It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. I would like to start my contribution by acknowledging that for many, many Australians this is a deeply personal issue. The institution of marriage is a bedrock of our society. I, like so many Australians, believe deeply in marriage and consider it to be the ultimate form of commitment which two people can make to one another—for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part. That is not to diminish the partnerships, the commitment and the love of those who choose not to marry of their own free will and not to diminish those who choose to have children, to raise a family but not to marry. Here is one of the cornerstones of this debate: gay and lesbian Australians and the broader LGBTQI community do not have that choice.
In June 2015, after much consultation in my community, I made my position on this issue clear. I confirmed that I supported both marriage equality and a free vote for coalition MPs. I believe our nation should follow the lead of countries such as the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland and most parts of the United States by legalising same-sex marriage. Support for marriage equality is consistent with fundamental Liberal values which embrace freedom of the individual and stable, long-term relationships. If two people love each other and wish to commit to a life together, they should have the option to be recognised equally under the law as a married couple. It is incredibly important to reiterate that this in issue on which decent people will differ, and respect in this debate is fundamental.
On our side of the House, we recognise that changing the Marriage Act is a very substantial change to one of the most fundamental institutions in our community and in our nation. That is why we decided last year that this issue should be resolved through a plebiscite that gives every Australian the opportunity to have his or her say. Our government has committed that a decision on same-sex marriage will be made by all Australians via a plebiscite on 11 February 2017. The question posed to Australians will be, 'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?'
This is an issue of democracy. At the election 15 million Australians voted. We prevailed in the election and we have the mandate to proceed with a plebiscite. If the yes vote prevails in the plebiscite, legislation to amend the Marriage Act will be introduced into the parliament. Under such circumstances, and consistent with our government's commitment, I will be supporting a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to marry.
I am very concerned that Labor's attempts to derail our plebiscite will put this issue on the backburner. This is not good for democracy. This is not good for gay and lesbian Australians. This is not good for the many Australians who care deeply about this issue. If parliamentarians in this place and in the other place are genuine about their desire for same-sex marriage they will support a plebiscite and pass this bill. We do believe it is thoroughly democratic to ask the Australian people whether the Marriage Act should be amended to allow for same-sex marriage, provided there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect religious freedom.
The Attorney-General has released a proposed draft legislation, by way of an exposure draft, for discussion in our community, which should give every Australian the confidence that it is the government's intention that any change in the Marriage Act will continue to give churches, religious institutions and marriage celebrants the freedom to conduct a marriage as they see fit. It is also very important to make the point, in this debate, that a plebiscite is an approach that was previously supported by Labor.
Just before the 2013 election Bill Shorten told religious leaders and Christian voters he was 'completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite' on same-sex marriage, as reported in the Australian on 29 June 2016. It is very disappointing—but not surprising—that Labor has chosen to so politicise this issue. In fact, what is not widely understood about Labor's position is that in 2019 the Labor Party will change its policy and will deny its members and senators a conscience vote on this issue. The party platform will be that the Marriage Act will be changed to permit same-sex marriage.
I believe, deeply, that this is a matter of conscience for every member of parliament in this place. That is one of the benefits of a non-binding plebiscite. I do acknowledge and I do appreciate that there are many people in the LGBTQI community who vehemently oppose the plebiscite, and I respect their views and their deep concerns. I do believe that most Australians—the vast majority of Australians—are capable of having a respectful debate about this issue. For those who are not and who say vile and offensive things, they should be properly condemned; their position, if that is the way they choose to engage in this debate, reflects only on themselves.
I consider that a plebiscite has the capacity to bring Australians together. I note the position of the member for Warringah, who is well known as opposing same-sex marriage. He has made it clear that if a yes vote prevails in a plebiscite he will vote yes in the parliament to change the Marriage Act—which, I think, will bring great joy to his sister, Christine, who is a well-known campaigner for same-sex marriage. I believe that many other members of parliament—including Labor members of parliament who oppose same-sex marriage but, because of Labor's politicisation of this issue, find it very hard to speak up in contrast to the majority view of Labor members of parliament—will also have the confidence and the conviction to vote yes if a yes vote in the plebiscite prevails. Based on the polling that we have seen in the last 12 months or so it is looking like a yes vote will prevail.
I would ask Labor MPs and senators, such as those in the Nick Xenophon Team, to reconsider their position. This is an issue of democracy but it is an important pathway forward. I know that for many this is not a perfect pathway but if a yes vote does prevail in the plebiscite we could have legislation, in this place, to amend the Marriage Act soon after February 2017. It is for these reasons that I commend this bill to the House.
I have spoken, in this chamber, in support of marriage equality on a number of occasions now and am very happy to do so again today. Last March I was visiting Dubbo and caught up with a very close friend of mine, Tom, and his partner, James. Tom and I have been friends since our first year at uni and that friendship has developed, over the last three decades, through the great times and the ups and downs of life. We have often talked about and reflected on the concept of marriage and the importance of relationships being recognised not just in our community but also in having that legal recognition and what that means for partners.
Tom made an announcement. He said to me, 'James and I are getting married,' which should always be a joyous and happy occasion. Like most people when they hear such news, I was incredibly thrilled for them both. But that news gave me very mixed emotions. As it sank in, I realised that that wedding was not going to be in Australia. That wedding was not going to be an occasion in which all of the important people in the lives of both those men would be present. As Tom explained to me, 'We have waited 15 years, Sharon. We are not awaiting any more. We are sick of the fact that you guys can't get your act together in parliament and get this business done.'
So they went to Copenhagen and, as I understand it, they made their vows before a very conservative member of the Copenhagen establishment and are now married. Fortunately, they both come from incredibly supportive farming families who acknowledge their relationship and, indeed, feel blessed by the love that these two men have for each other. Whilst some of their very close family were able to be there, recognition is still a very real issue for those men. For anybody who is married overseas, it is about the recognition of their marriage back in Australia. But I am so saddened that they were forced into that position in the first place. Had they had the opportunity to take their vows before all the people they loved—their friends and the people who are important in their lives—it would have been a different kind of occasion for them both. The fact that they were married overseas does not mean that there love means less, but it is a deep shame that that could not happen here in Australia.
I think this parliament will live to regret it if we cannot come to an accommodation where this parliament is able to take a free vote on a piece of legislation in the same way that we vote on any other pieces of legislation dealing with discriminatory laws and practices that are on our books. I find myself in furious agreement with the Honourable Justice Kirby in this respect that a plebiscite vote is an alien concept to our representative democracy. Indeed, it is a threat to that mode of representative democracy. Imagine the mess we would be leaving this nation if we outsourced our responsibility to deal with laws on a range of controversial issues that come before the parliament. It would be unforgivable. Imagine if in 1902, when women suffragists championed the cause of getting the vote for women, the Australian Parliament had said: 'Hit the pause button there. We can't possibly contemplate giving Australian women a vote. Let's give a plebiscite to those who already have the privileged position of being able to vote in the first place and outsource that responsibility.' How would we have dealt with Indigenous rights and the rights of people with disabilities? These are things the parliament should rightly address and should in fact lead.
It is the responsibility of each of us, as community leaders, to have these kinds of debates within our communities, and I am sure there are many colleagues who have been doing that. I have listened to many contributions in the House around this issue where people have sought to have genuine consultations with the community at large. Yes, there may be some mixed views from time to time. But it is my firm view that this parliament is ducking its historic duty to protect and, indeed, further the rights of our citizens. That is the role of this parliament.
My constituents in Newcastle are gobsmacked that we continue to have this discussion in the parliament. Most people who come to talk to me around this issue say: 'For goodness sake, have you guys not done this yet?' It is not just that people want this issue done and dusted, although there may be an element of that now; it is unimaginable to the vast majority of Australians that we would outsource our obligation to protect and advance citizenship rights in Australia. As I said, it is a matter that many people in my community of Newcastle have spoken to me about over the years. Before I was elected to the parliament in 2013, I made sure that my view was very clearly articulated to my community. I wrote opinion pieces around the fact that I have spent my whole life fighting discrimination in various guises. That is the lens through which I examine the issue of marriage equality; for me, it is a fundamental human right.
I applaud previous Labor governments for the removal of discriminatory practices and laws from 85 different pieces of legislation that were on our statute books. I think we should always acknowledge those who came before us and the tremendous work that has happened. This is the one remaining piece of unfinished business for the parliament. The parliament was able to get its act together and eradicate discrimination from 85 pieces of legislation. Why can't we do it for that one final piece of legislation, the Marriage Act? John Howard himself changed that act without going to a plebiscite. If we did not have to go to the Australian people in order to change the Marriage Act in the first place and confine marriage to the union of a man and a woman, how can the conservatives argue today that we must go to a plebiscite in order to undo the change that their conservative hero John Howard made without any consultation with the Australian people back in 2004?
That seems to be a fundamental flaw in the conservative argument on this issue, and it is one that is often raised with me in my conversations with people in Newcastle on this issue.
I have been contacted by literally hundreds of people from Newcastle on this matter. Of those, 300 or more are constituent contacts. There have been six who have asked me to proceed in support of a plebiscite. I respectfully responded to each of those six people—indeed, all of the hundreds of others as well—to say that I acknowledge and respect their point of view here.
But I made clear, as I said, from day one as a candidate, before people voted for me for the first time and, again, the second time, what my position is and where my conscience stands on this issue. So I say to those who have asked me to proceed in support of a plebiscite that I respect our point of difference—and I believe that their articulation of their point of view is an important part of the political process.
But if this plebiscite does not proceed, which I strongly believe it should not, then what will be the course to eventually recognise marriage equality in Australia? That is, I think, an issue that weighs heavily on everybody who is articulating the 'no' vote on the plebiscite. But my decision-making is made so much easier by the fact that, without exception, of those hundreds and hundreds of people who have contacted me on this issue and who are from the LGBTI community, not one person wants me to vote in favour of that plebiscite—not one.
It seems to me that we have a profound obligation to listen carefully to those people who will feel the brunt of the divisive nature of the discussion and discourse around marriage equality. We have a very strong obligation to protect those citizens who feel most vulnerable in this debate, when it is those who come forward to you and say: 'Since when is it okay to outsource our human rights as a minority group to a popular opinion poll of the majority?' I have reflected deeply on that, and the fact is that it is never okay to subject the most vulnerable in your community to an onslaught of division, hate and trauma.
I say 'trauma' because a number of my constituents have contacted me of late and have revealed some of the most personal aspects of their lives that I would not even begin to repeat in this parliament. Just the discussion of the possibility of having this plebiscite and what that has already opened up in the community and is subjecting some of these people to is reopening trauma in the lives of these men and women. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that they are protected from that kind of abuse and despicable behaviour. Nobody in this parliament would condone some of the behaviour that I have heard about of the lived experience of some of my constituents.
In closing I do want to acknowledge that one of the very bright spots, however, of this otherwise traumatic debate around the plebiscite that is happening in the community is the strength of advocacy that has been shown by the parents and friends of the lesbian and gay community. In particular, I want to acknowledge PFLAG in my region and Michelle Lancey, who heads up the PFLAG group in the Hunter.
Michelle is a friend of mine. I have known her for many years now. Although she feels a little weary and a little battle fatigued from time to time, this has been a deeply personal issue for her. She describes herself as a straight, Christian woman with three amazing, beautiful kids, one of whom happens to be gay. She wants him to have the same rights as her other two children. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable aspiration for any parent to have and one that this parliament should be doing everything to support. I beg members opposite to revisit this issue, allow a free vote— (Time expired)
I thank the member for her input and call the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.
I rise to speak on this important issue. I do so more out of disappointment and frustration than anger, and that disappointment and frustration is directed towards the decision by the Australian Labor Party to oppose the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016.
I fear that, for those of us who have a view in support of same-sex marriage, as I do—albeit a view that I only reached in the last 12 months—I see no other pathway that is likely to succeed in this term of parliament other than a plebiscite to be put to the Australian people and a compelling vote at that time. So it is disappointing and frustrating that the Labor Party has chosen not to support the plebiscite bill.
I would just like to reflect briefly on my own personal journey in relation to this issue. It is one that is illustrative of perhaps many in this place and perhaps in the broader community. When I was first elected in 2008 I was asked the question by a journalist in my electorate as to whether I would vote in support of same-sex marriage. Having assessed at that time that there was what I believed to have been a majority view in my community of Gippsland opposed to such a change to the Marriage Act, I indicated that, no, I would not support any such change and voted accordingly during my first two terms here in the federal parliament.
My view changed over time through discussions within my electorate, through meetings with people who were the families and friends of same-sex attracted couples and through meetings with couples themselves. Over the course of perhaps three or four years, I detected what I believe was quite a significant change in attitude within the community as the discussion was being held in Gippsland. The change in attitude was to such an extent that I believed that my electorate was actually supportive of change and that I myself was comfortable with voting in support of that change. So, last year, I perhaps surprised some people within my own grassroots party structure in Gippsland when I announced publicly that I intended to support same-sex marriage if a vote came to parliament in the future.
The reason I raise my own personal experience is to reflect on the fact that I think the nation itself is on a journey on this issue. We may not all reach the same destination but I think the nation is on a journey on this issue. If you had put this issue to the Australian people in a plebiscite even as recently as five or 10 years ago, I think there would have been a resounding no. I am not one to try to predict the future but I would have thought if there were to be a plebiscite next year then there would be a strong case and a strong vote for yes. As someone who has changed their own position, I am disappointed the Australian people are not going to get that chance, as it stands here today.
People often ask me why I changed my view. It is not an easy question to answer. Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, you have many conversations in your role in your own electorate. You have many conversations with people who raise issues where you can feel compassion and empathy for them but not necessarily the need to change your own personal opinion on a topic. For me, it was more about providing for more acceptance in the community of same-sex attracted young people, particularly in regional communities. My concern came from reports of young people self-harming and reports of young people committing suicide, particularly in rural and regional areas where the support services were not necessarily there. These young people felt the need to suppress their sexuality. Sometimes they did not feel accepted within their own family, and certainly they did not always feel accepted within the broader community. Whether or not this was justified or warranted, their personal sense of wellbeing, their sense of self-worth and their sense of self-esteem was undermined by the fact that they did not feel that they were accepted in the community. As much as they have appreciated the changes in legislation, which have given all legal rights to same-sex couples in a whole range of other areas, the issue of having access to the great tradition of marriage was one that was holding them back in feeling fully accepted within the community.
I have participated in this debate many times over the past eight years, and at all times I have tried to be calm, moderate and respectful of different points of view. That is why it disappoints me, I guess, more than anything else that the Labor Party are basically saying that they do not believe the Australian people are capable of having a calm, moderate and respectful debate on this issue. I freely acknowledge that there are people on either side of this debate—there are extreme elements on either side of this debate—who have put points of view which I find repugnant and offensive, but that is not the vast majority of Australians. I happen to strongly believe in the goodwill of the Australian people. I believe the Australian people would be able to conduct this debate in a respectful, calm and moderate manner. I am disappointed in the way that the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to play this more as a political issue than one of important public discussion.
The challenge we have more broadly on the topic is that the coalition took a position to the Australian people that we would support a plebiscite. Having won that vote, we are duty bound to bring that legislation to the parliament and pursue it through a thoroughly democratic, fair and transparent process. It is not up to the opposition to decide which promises the government is allowed to keep and which ones the government is allowed to break. We have a contract with the Australian people, and that contract to form government was based around the Prime Minister canvassing very strongly during the whole election campaign that we were supportive of a plebiscite and we would give the Australian people a chance to have their say. If the Leader of the Opposition is serious about resolving this issue, if he is serious about his support of same-sex marriage and same-sex attracted couples, he would convince his Labor Party colleagues to support the plebiscite.
There is really only one reason or one plausible justification for opposing this bill, and that is the cost. I would freely acknowledge that the cost is something of no little substance. But to suggest the Australian people are not capable of having a debate on a difficult issue says more about the Leader of the Opposition than it says about anyone else. We have the capacity to have this debate. We need to have this debate because, quite frankly, the parliament itself has not been able to deal with it. For the whole time I have been here, it has been hanging around as an issue. We have had votes on this issue, and it is still here. It is unresolved. While plebiscites should be rare, I think in this particular case, when it is on a topic of such great social importance to our nation, it is appropriate that we do in fact hold the plebiscite and that we simply wear the cost involved.
My general outlook on the Australian people is, I would have to say, for more positive and optimistic than that of the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party more generally. This is about fairness. As much as possible, the government has endeavoured to make the process as fair as possible. In resolving to provide public funding of equal amounts for both a yes case and a no case, the Prime Minister has acted with complete honour and integrity and tried to ensure that the process is as fair as possible. In the construction of the question itself, again, the Prime Minister and the cabinet have endeavoured to act with complete openness and integrity in trying to put forward a question which is as fair as possible. As I said, the parliament has not been able to deal with this issue conclusively, and it is only fair that we take it to the Australian people and give them a chance to have their say.
I fear that there is only one credible pathway to legalising same-sex marriage in the 45th Parliament, and that is through this proposed plebiscite. As I indicated previously, as someone who does support changes to the Marriage Act, I believe this is the course we should be taking. We need to end all doubt in relation to this issue. One of the compelling reasons for holding a plebiscite is that in the community there is a lack of trust in the opinion polls or the surveys—whatever you like to call them—and in the findings from them. We would actually end all doubt if we held a plebiscite. It would add extra strength to the argument of those who support same-sex marriage, and the weighted numbers would, I believe, be compelling. I am not saying that people need legitimacy to their relationships, but the plebiscite would add legitimacy to their argument that the majority of Australians support a change to the Marriage Act and, in fact, support same-sex marriage.
In conclusion, I simply say that I believe the only fair way to decide this issue is to give every Australian a chance to have their say. The people of Gippsland who honoured me with their vote at the last election—who actually honoured me with an increase in my primary vote, despite the suggestions that my decision to support same-sex marriage would cost me in an electoral sense—expect me to vote in support of a plebiscite, because that is what I said I would do in the lead-up to the election. Yes, it is expensive, but I am very confident we can have a calm, moderate and respectful debate. Whatever the result of the plebiscite, if in fact it is held, I would respect the view of the Australian people, just as I am sure the vast majority of members of parliament would.
My job, as a local member of parliament and as a member of cabinet, is to deliver a process which is fair to both sides of this argument. I said at the outset that I am disappointed and frustrated that the Leader of the Opposition has a different view of the Australian people. I think he has a very mean-spirited view of the Australian people. I think he is being mean-spirited in the sense that he does not believe we can have a civilised debate on an issue where people have had strongly-held views. We are capable of doing this as a nation. I have always participated in this debate in a very respectful manner and will continue to do so, and I am confident that the people in my community, the community of Gippsland, would like the opportunity to do so as well.
We have had plebiscites and referenda before on very difficult issues and we have been up to the job as a nation. I cannot believe that the modern Australian Labor Party believe that the Australian community in 2016 is somehow less capable than communities of years gone by—that they are not able to have a tough discussion on an issue of some level of division in the community. As I said earlier, I think this is the only fair way to resolve this issue—an issue which parliament has not been able to deal with conclusively during the eight years that I have been the member for Gippsland. The result would be decided by a simple majority of votes, which is 50 per cent plus one. I believe that the Labor Party need to reflect on what they are actually saying to the Australian people on this issue. They are simply saying that you are not up to this; you are not capable of making a tough decision. I would urge those opposite to reconsider that view. If they do not reconsider that view, if we do not hold the plebiscite, I do not see a credible pathway towards changes to the Marriage Act in the 45th Parliament. With those few words, I again urge the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider his position.
I find it staggering that the Leader of the Opposition is seriously trying to suggest that, with the support of the Labor Party, with the support of the Prime Minister and the support of the Leader of the Greens, plus at least two National Party cabinet ministers, Australia cannot have a rational and respectful debate on this issue. If the plebiscite vote were to go ahead, some of the loudest voices in this federal parliament would be on the side of change. It would have the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Labor Party, the Leader of the Greens and at least two National Party cabinet ministers speaking in support of same-sex marriage, yet the Leader of the Opposition believes we would not be able to have that debate in a calm, respectful and moderate manner.
The only final point I would make is in relation to the media's role on this topic. I have a view that the media have an important role to play in this debate. The media can choose how much airtime they provide to people who have more extreme, offensive or repugnant views on the topic. I am not saying they need to censor themselves, but they need to acknowledge that there are people participating in this debate in a way which is intended to be inflammatory and is intended to undermine the calm, respectful and moderate debate that I referred to. So I would simply say that, if you had the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Labor Party, the Leader of the Greens and at least two National Party cabinet ministers all speaking with one voice on this topic, the case for change would be compelling. I support the bill before the House and I urge those opposite to reconsider their position.
I thank the minister. Just so that everybody knows where we are at, this is the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'this bill be withdrawn and redrafted to legislate for marriage equality and that the House calls on the government to afford all members of parliament a free vote'. The question is now that the amendment be agreed to.
I rise today as a person who went through high school where the word 'gay' was used as a term of insult and where boys were bullied for displaying feminine qualities. Indeed, as it turned out, some of the people bullied did come out after we had all left school. I look back now and think about how they were treated and I hang my head in shame, not necessarily for anything I did, but definitely for what I did not do or was unable to stop. I could say that this is what happened in another time, another era, but let's be fair: this was only in the mid- to late 90s; it was not that long ago.
It is in this context, then, that I do heed the grave concerns of the LGBTI community that this plebiscite will be damaging and harmful to their health and wellbeing. A survey of more than 5,000 LGBTI Australians conducted by the Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays Australia earlier this year found that 85 per cent of LGBTI people oppose the plebiscite. The two most common reasons for opposing a plebiscite were: anxiety over hate campaigns and the belief that minority rights should not be put to a majority vote.
One of my constituents from the suburb of Camillo, Chris, emailed me after the 2016 election. He has been with his male partner for seven years, yet during the 2015 Canning by-election he received a flyer from an anti-same-sex marriage organisation. In Chris's words:
I don't think this was directed at my home specifically, but nonetheless it was a very weird and invasive experience to receive anonymous political literature on what is—for me—a very private and personal subject.
If a plebiscite is held I think this experience will be repeated constantly for many weeks or months and I don't look forward to it.
The Australian public backs the LGBTI community. In September, Newspoll found 48 per cent of respondents favoured a vote in this place on marriage equality, while just 39 per cent backed a plebiscite. An Essential poll from just this Tuesday showed that 55 per cent of respondents believe that the government should now hold a vote in the parliament on allowing marriage equality. There is a wider issue here of whether the majority should have the overriding say on the rights of a minority.
As I said in my first speech, it is the role of our parliament to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. For better or worse, we do not have a Bill of Rights in this country. Instead, we have inherited a tradition that it is our sovereign parliament that is responsible for the protection of human rights and making fundamental decisions between competing rights.
But there is no competition between rights here in the debate about marriage equality. While many have tried to argue that the introduction of marriage equality will infringe on the rights of those that believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman, this is a complete misunderstanding of the real issues. Indeed, as I have participated in discussions and fora on this topic, I am beginning to believe that there is a degree of deliberate misinformation being promulgated on this issue.
The issue to be determined is whether a minority group in this country should have the same recognition and treatment under the law of this country, along with the social recognition that comes with that, as the majority of people in this country. As such, the proposal to hold a plebiscite on this issue sets a terrible precedent for our democracy and the way in which we govern ourselves. In fact, WA Liberal Senator Dean Smith has said he cannot support throwing out one of the key principles of our democracy for the sake of political expediency. He thinks parliamentarians absconding from their duty to vote as elected representatives in parliament is wrong.
Parliament has voted on tough issues in the past. Parliament has made changes to the Marriage Act in the past. Parliament has introduced conscription, voted on euthanasia and considered abortion medication in the past. The Parliament has even legislated on traditional land ownership and native title recognition, going to the fundamentals of land ownership and conquest at the time of European settlement, without going to a public vote. We are elected here as members of our parliament to do the job of representing our electorates and to vote on the laws that apply in this country. We cannot and should not outsource that work or responsibility.
To top it off, the proposed plebiscite will not even be binding on members of parliament. We will go to all the trouble of forcing every Australian to vote on this issue, then conservative coalition members and senators will ignore the result anyway. For a government that bangs on about having to fix debt and deficit—a problem that they have made astronomically worse—this is a pretty wild waste of taxpayers' money.
We have also heard in this place, as well as read elsewhere, the view being put about of marriage as a 'pre-political' institution. It has concerned me that this myth has not been properly confronted. I do not have time today to take the member for Canning through chapter and verse on this; however, suffice it to say that the High Court considered precisely this type of argument when considering the ACT's 2013 marriage equality laws. In doing so, the High Court considered all the evidence on the nature of marriage over history and explicitly stated that marriage is not immovable or locked to the social institutions as they stood at federation. To quote from the High Court judgement:
The status of marriage, the social institution which that status reflects, and the rights and obligations which attach to that status never have been, and are not now, immutable … One obvious change in the social institution of marriage which had occurred before federation is … that the union be "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."
The High Court goes on to note that even at the time of federation marriage could be dissolved by the civil courts.
This also highlights the difficulty with the member for Moore's contribution that:
Marriage is not a romantic notion; it is an important social institution that deals with progeny.
Actually, historically, marriage was a legal contract that determined who inherited property. We have clearly moved on from this being the primary notion of marriage a long time ago. I think this is very important, because it goes to demonstrate that for a long time the nature of marriage has not been something constrained by the view of a particular belief structure. More importantly, it is not even something determined by one or a group of belief structures. We have divorce and we have civil marriages—not religious marriages—in this country.
I am a practicing Catholic, and for me this point is very important. Just as Catholics have fought for centuries against the imposition of Protestantism, and other religious groups have suffered persecution at the hands of various Christian groups, we should not now revert—nay, regress—to becoming a nation that determines its laws based on specific religious views. To do so cuts across the fundamental nature of our pluralist, multicultural society.
But of course religious freedoms are also important in this context, and it is for this reason that the Marriage Act expressly states and will continue to state that there is no obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage. Rightly, it is the churches and religions that decide who, within their beliefs, may marry within the sacraments of those churches and religions. The Act even provides a mechanism for groups to become recognised denominations under the Marriage Act. These protections would remain.
In this context I relay my great excitement at learning the news late last year that one of my best mates, Drew, would be marrying his partner, Liam, earlier this year. You see, Drew and Liam are lucky, because Liam holds a British passport, so they were able to be married at the UK High Commission in Sydney. This was followed by a lovely ceremony and party, which both their families and many friends attended. Alas, their UK marriage is not recognised here in Australia. Not only is this discriminatory and unfair—it is frankly absurd! We are the last English speaking nation to make this change.
The people want a change, and I want my friends Drew and Liam, Stephen and Dennis and many, many others around Australia to have their loving relationships recognised and acknowledged by the state and our society, just as they recognise that of my wife Annabel and me.
And finally, this is not just me, it is not just my Labor colleagues, or Labor and the cross bench. We are presently playing out an absurd farce in this place—a tyranny of a minority within a majority. A majority of the members of this House, as well as a majority of those in the Senate, want to vote to make marriage equality a reality. And yet, in the institution that should not just embody and represent our democratic ideals but also live and breathe them, we cannot have a vote to make marriage equality law because the Prime Minister is too gutless to stand up for what he actually believes in and allow the one thing that apparently defines the Liberal Party to occur—a free vote. We have a Prime Minister that is scared of his party room and scared of our democratic institutions and so is prepared to deny equality to LGBTI Australia. Shame, Prime Minister, shame!
The Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 will deliver a plebiscite to give the Australian voting population a say on whether to change the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act. Having a plebiscite as soon as practical on this issue has been coalition policy for some time under the former Abbott government and then, under the Turnbull-Joyce coalition government, it was declared as our policy in the recent federal election. It was not fine print policy; it was front and centre of the last federal election. In that, the coalition were a mandate to proceed with the plebiscite. We are delivering on that promise. I am, like many on the side of that House, therefore more than extremely disappointed that the opposition are now opposing what they themselves were proposing just a few years ago, not in the last election but for the years proceeding.
Now why is a plebiscite important? What is proposed in the same sex marriage bill is to change the definition of a foundational institution of our society and all societies before it. Shock-horror, it is controversial out there in the general public. A lot has been said about the overwhelming support for same-sex marriage or marriage equality but this is a bill about changing the definition of what constitutes the institution of marriage. When anything is that controversial, a plebiscite where everyone gets a voice, not just communication-savvy activists or people that make the loudest noise, is by its very essence a very democratic process. Those that deny the broader population a say, I think, are being antidemocratic.
Australia is a sophisticated society. We can have a sensible conversation about a really important topic like this. That it will lead to self-harm or other injuries, I think, is an overstatement. Obviously some people will be upset talking about an issue that is so personal but to implicate or infer or even state outright that there is going to be mass self-harm or depression as a result of a community wide discussion about an important social institution, I think, is way overstated. But if we do not give the whole of Australia a say, it will also mean that the outcome will not have legitimacy. So I think it would be beneficial for all concerned, for both sides of the argument if the whole population has a say. You may find that your opinion is out of step with the broader Australian public. You might find individual electorates are exactly disposed towards this decision in the way that you think they are.
I have just a few words about the institution of marriage. A lot has been said about religion in this issue. My concern is that this is not just a religious or belief-driven definition. All societies, from primitive hunter gatherer societies through to advanced First World economies—First World, second world, Third World—in the east, west, north and south, all races, all creeds have had marriage as an institution. For the procreation of the next generation, for the defence of women and children, it has been a societal institution. Many religions also have been involved in it because religious belief and the various iterations of it preceded government in many cases. So historically, religious institutions in all these societies, like I said, from primitive societies to advanced societies—all races, all creeds, all religions—have had an institution of marriage. It is defined by biology and by anatomy, not by the current social sentiment. There is an existential reality that seems to be have been lost in the conversation. Marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
For those nations in the recent past that have, by legislative edict of the government, brought change in the definition of marriage, there has not been universal acceptance. You have only got to look at Europe. Go to France, were I have travelled many times. In 2013, there was a rally in Paris with 1½ million people in the streets objecting to it. To me, that was massive. One of the candidates for the presidency, Mr Sarkozy, has actually said he would consider repealing that act. It is not a done deal across the world, which is what many of the advocates make out. In Italy just the other day in 2016, there were hundreds of thousands of people that came out in a similar rally against changing the definition of marriage.
The other thing that needs to be put on record is in amongst the campaigners for changing the definition of marriage, the driver of their support is to redress discrimination against same sex couples. But what most people do not realise is a lot of those discriminatory legal issues were addressed in the early 2000s starting in the late 90s. We are not the same as Ireland, where lots of these legal discriminatory issues had not been addressed. In Australia, a same-sex couple, if it meets certain criteria, has the same recognition as a de facto heterosexual couple. The Human Rights Commission put forward many recommendations about changing multiple pieces of legislation in both state and federal parliament that have achieved equivalence in the eyes of the law, including rights to property, property and maintenance, superannuation, intestacy and succession. There were 20 pieces of legislation in New South Wales property acts that were changed, for instance. The Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008 cleared up all these issues. A lot of people came to me and said, 'Look, I think gay couples should be able to inherit their partner's superannuation and property if they die.' I said, 'They do now. If you are in a genuine same-sex relationship and you qualify for de facto status, well, it is there already.'
There is also legal recognition of relationships or couples, both heterosexual and same sex, through relationship registers that have been set up in all the states in Australia. In Tasmania the Relationships Act 2003 established just that: just as there is a marriage registry there is a relationship registry. In Victoria the Relationships Act 2008 set up a similar situation. In New South Wales, as long as one of the members of the partnership resides in New South Wales they can be put on a relationships register. That commenced in 2010. In Queensland the Civil Partnerships Act 2011 and in the ACT the Domestic Relationships Act gave formal legal recognition of such partnerships. They are all legal proof of de facto relationship, whether heterosexual or same sex.
Admittedly, the registers are not portable. If you are registered in one state and move to another state, say from New South Wales to Queensland, you have to re-register your relationship to get all the legal benefits. In the ACT, the Civil Unions Act 2012 permits a greater level of formal ceremonial and symbolic registration. That still stands. The ACT did bring in legislation subsequently that was knocked down by the High Court, but in essence in the ACT a civil union—although by definition it is different from a marriage—is treated under law in the same way as marriage.
I do not think that anyone who opposes changing the definition of marriage is homophobic. The stock standard answer that people roll out is: 'I know lots of gay people.' They may, but that is not the issue. You do not need to know someone to be legitimately empathic with what they are trying to do. What I am saying is that we are debating a change in the definition of a foundational institution of all societies, not just Australian society. The fact that there has been a push in other countries to change the definition does not mean we have to do it. A plebiscite is the best way to get from the broader population information about what they really feel. A lot of people in my electorate have come to me and said, 'David, we're relying on you to be our voice. We think the plebiscite is a good idea because it will give us a chance to say what we really think.' Some people have put it to me that polling suggests that the popularly promoted idea of overwhelming support for gay marriage is not actually there. The cynic in me thinks that maybe the change in the opposition, to push against a plebiscite, is because the broad wave of support that is meant to be out in the population is not as broad as it is made out to be.
The other thing about marriage equality is the biological nature of the institution of marriage. For something to be equivalent it has to be the same. As I have said, with the existential reality of biology, anatomy, physiology and reproduction, traditional and same-sex marriage are not the same. You cannot make something equivalent just because in a First World country you are able to get advanced surrogacy and all those other added-on things to create a family without the biological union of a man and a woman.
If we do change the definition of marriage there will be consequences. A similar, or related, agenda running in Australia at the moment is the degenderisation of society. I think that is a wacky idea and is based on a false premise in order to satisfy some people who have issues about their gender identity. I think that while all compassion and support should be given to those individuals, you don't turn the whole basis of traditional society on its head forever. That will weaken an institution that needs strengthening.
One of the problems for Australia, and the western world in general, is that we are witnessing a breakdown in the traditional strength of the family as a unit of society. Changing that definition will have consequences. The proposed bill has some clauses that ensure that religious people are not compromised on the essential beliefs of their religion, but it will have consequences for religious institutions that differentiate, which is their right. A religious order or organisation has the right to differentiate in employment or engagement in employment on the basis of religious beliefs. It is like saying, 'I want to play in a soccer team but I don't want to play soccer. I want to play rugby league.' Organisations and bodies do differentiate and organise their members or the people they educate on the basis of their beliefs. It is not homophobia just because you do not agree with the other side.
A plebiscite is the way for Australia as a nation to get all the arguments, for and against, on the table. I support that. It will take the steam out of the argument of fanatics on both sides and will lead to a rational landing point. Admittedly, legislation will then have to come forward, but we went to the election on this plebiscite. It was not a fine print bit of policy. It was front and centre at the last election. We have a mandate to do it. For all those reasons, we should just get on and pass this legislation. Senators should respect the mandate that the coalition government was given at the last election and pass this bill there as well.
I am proud to make a contribution on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. I am proud to oppose the plebiscite bill, not because it is popular or unpopular in my constituency and not because it is popular or unpopular in Australia. I am proud to oppose it because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do because the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act constitutes legal discrimination, and it is our job to resolve that. It is our job to end that discrimination. It is not our job to outsource it. It is not our job to waste $200 million on a campaign process that will engender hate, division, fear and loathing in this country. It is our job as a representative democracy, as the guardians of that democracy and as representatives of the people to make a decision and vote conscience.
As I said, the current definition of marriage is discriminatory. It prohibits for a whole group of our fellow Australians the ability to make the decision to marry their partner that currently heterosexual Australians are free to make. In the case of the institution of marriage, LGBTI Australians do not enjoy access to the same rights and privileges that heterosexual Australians do. It is a fundamental right. People can talk about other forms of discrimination, whether it is access to parental leave or access to superannuation if there is a debt, and that is good and proper. That is really important. I am proud that the Labor government made 80 changes in its last term in government to resolve those forms of discrimination. But, as long as the institute of marriage discriminates against same-sex couples, that must be resolved as well.
There are strongly held views on both sides of this debate. It is appropriate that we have this debate in a sensitive and respectful manner. It is deeply disappointing that there have been deeply offensive contributions in the past by the radical right wing of the Liberal Party and certain other individuals. Ending discrimination should be bipartisan. It is beyond belief that we need to have a debate about ending discrimination, let alone a wasteful, non-binding opinion poll, which is what this plebiscite would be. I believe that good policy must be underpinned by the enduring values of equality, fairness and social justice. Therefore, I support marriage equality, as I believe that the current legal framework is discriminatory towards same-sex couples, and I look forward to voting in favour of marriage equality in this chamber at some point.
In 2016 it is not right that one group of people are denied a right that is available to another group. It is unjust, unfair and cruel that the definition of marriage in the act allows heterosexual Australians to marry but not LGBTI Australians. This must end. I am hopeful that this parliament will make the rational and decent decision to end this discrimination through its own processes rather than a plebiscite.
That is the most basic point about this entire debate. The plebiscite is completely unnecessary. In Australia marriage is defined in the Marriage Act. The High Court has ruled that it is a matter for this parliament to determine. We are abdicating our duty as legislators if we shirk this responsibility. I ask about the members of the government who have spoken in favour of this plebiscite: where were they when the Marriage Act was amended 20 times? Where were they in 2004 when Prime Minister John Howard altered the Marriage Act by definition? Where were they jumping up and down and saying, 'Prime Minister, we need to put this to a plebiscite to put this change through?' The case is that the Marriage Act has been amended to reflect the views of society or the views of members of this chamber 20 times, and in none of those instances has a plebiscite been necessary. Nor is it necessary now. I stand with the High Court in making it very clear that I regard it as our job to resolve this and no-one else's.
Let us be under no misapprehension that the Liberal-Nationals coalition has decided a plebiscite is necessary because of a point of principle. The plebiscite came forward because then Prime Minister Abbott wanted to avoid a damaging split in his party room. I remember that night when they had that six-hour debate within their party room. I remember that night when Prime Minister Abbott's leadership was tested. This plebiscite idea was not some sort of commandment from moral philosophers; it was a dirty political fix to avoid a split in the coalition party room. That is the truth. Anything else is window-dressing. Anything else is mendacious commentary. Anything else is not reality. The reality is that this was a dirty political fix to avoid a split in the Liberal-Nationals party room.
What has happened since then is that the new Prime Minister, after he knocked off the previous Prime Minister, has had to do certain deals. He has had to provide certain commitments to the right wing of the Liberal Party and the National Party that he will not move towards the centre on renewable energy, climate change and marriage equality. He gave those commitments to grasp the prime ministership. He sold out his morals for that, and we are a poorer nation for that.
The really important thing about this entire debate is that we are a representative democracy. We are not Switzerland where they have referenda. We are not California where they have regular citizen initiated referenda. We are a representative democracy where we, the members of this place, make decisions.
It is quite interesting to see, if I look back in the Hansard, that Edmund Burke has been quoted in this chamber over 200 times since Federation. I am willing to bet that almost every single time it was in an inaugural speech by a member of the Liberal-National party with this quote:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
That is the Burkian representative democracy philosophy that those on the other side profess such deep, abiding love for. I would submit that they are betraying their constituencies by sacrificing their judgement to the supposed opinion of the Australian people. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of so many members on the other side when they do.
Ultimately, the question in this debate is no different from many other fundamental moral questions we have engaged with in this chamber. There was not a plebiscite when we allowed no-fault divorce. There was not a plebiscite when homosexuality was decriminalised in the various state parliaments. That was not a plebiscite when we instituted the Marriage Act to replace the horrible state acts which prevented Indigenous Australians marrying white Australians.
Let's pause on that moment for a second. In 1961 when the Marriage Act was put in place in federal law, one of the driving forces was to get rid of a horrific discrimination where state governments had the ability to stop marriages between Indigenous Australians and white Australians. That was a fundamentally moral decision around discrimination, and no plebiscite was necessary.
I find many other issues we debate in this chamber are fundamentally about morals. Universal access to health care is, for me, a moral issue about, 'Are all Australians equal?' We did not need a plebiscite for legislating that. We did our job. We did our job as a representative democracy to make the decisions and to use our judgement in the best interests of this nation.
Another argument in this debate is around family and children. Many speakers on the other side have made the point that marriage is about child-rearing. In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, your contribution included that point. While I respect this deeply held view, it is fundamentally flawed. There is no current law which dictates that children must be raised by a mother and a father. Indeed, there is no legal prohibition on children being raised by two women, two men or a single parent. I believe that children do best when they are raised in a loving family, and it does not matter whether there is one mother and one father, two fathers, two mothers or one parent; the key is love and care.
I think all sides of politics can agree on the importance of the institution of marriage to society and as the bedrock of our families to some extent. However, the argument that this institution should be restricted to heterosexuals is deeply flawed. Surely people who want to commit to spending their lives together, to loving and looking after each other and maybe having a family as well, will greatly strengthen the fabric of our society. I have no doubt that making every citizen equal will strengthen this vital institution for all existing and future marriages. We do not prevent older Australians who are beyond the age of child-bearing from marriage. If marriage were solely about child-bearing, we would say that anyone who is incapable of bearing children should not be allowed to marry. They are completely separate issues.
Another issue that has come up many times in this debate is religion. Many people also oppose marriage equality on the basis of religious beliefs, and I respect that. Some are concerned that religions will be forced to recognise marriage equality. They have nothing to fear, as any change will ensure that the Marriage Act does not impose an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any same-sex marriage. This is not about religion. I was married to my wife by a civil celebrant. I do not believe a homosexual couple should be denied this right. The fact that I was married by a civil celebrant does not diminish the power of marriages solemnised with religious ceremonies and nor will marriage equality.
I want those of my constituents who oppose marriage equality on the basis of their deeply held beliefs to know that I hear their voice and I respect their view, but I cannot in good faith continue to support legal discrimination against my fellow Australians. One of my best friends is a Catholic. He was raised in the Catholic Church and received a Catholic education. When I asked him his view on this issue, he told me very plainly that he supports marriage equality because of his Catholicism and not in spite of it. He told me that the most fundamental tenet of the Catholic faith is the equality of everyone before God, and he also stressed how love, inclusion and compassion are such important values taught by his church and are a strong part of his own deeply held religious beliefs. The point I am making here is that many people who adhere to a religious faith also support marriage equality. But, even if they do not, we cannot make laws in this country and in this chamber based on religious beliefs. We have moved a long way from having a union of religion and the Crown. We have moved a long way from having an official state religion that dictates the morals and laws of this country. Any way of using religious beliefs to prevent marriage equality, I fear, impinges on and blurs the line in the separation of church and state.
I have many constituents who have conveyed their views of marriage equality in a positive way, who want marriage equality in this country and are opposed to a divisive plebiscite that will divide this country. That is the truth of this. Wasting $200 million on a plebiscite will divide this country. Giving $7½ million of taxpayers' money to the for and against campaigns will license hate speech in this country. I stand with Professor McGorry in saying it will impinge on the mental health of many Australians. That is of deep concern and it is one of the many reasons I oppose this plebiscite.
From a purely fiscal point of view, having a $200 million plebiscite that is not binding on a single parliamentarian is an enormous waste of money. This is the most expensive opinion poll in the history of this country, and it will not bind a single parliamentarian. There have been many members of the Liberal-National coalition who have made it very clear that, even if the plebiscite goes ahead and there is a resounding yes, they will still vote no to marriage equality in this parliament, which makes a mockery of the entire process, not to mention the waste of $200 million—$200 million that could be invested in education or health; $200 million that could fix up the crumbling infrastructure in my region of the Hunter Valley and the Central Coast. These are the many reasons that I oppose a marriage equality plebiscite.
I am so proud to be a member of a political party that has a commitment to marriage equality in its policy platform. This issue should be above politics, but I want to pay tribute to a couple of my colleagues who have so led the charge in this area. Senator Penny Wong has done a brilliant job in arguing for this case. The member for Grayndler was one of the first members of this place to introduce legislation to end discrimination against same-sex couples, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has played an instrumental role. I want to applaud them and say that I proudly stand with the Labor Party in opposing this wasteful, divisive plebiscite which prevents us from doing our job as MPs.
The proudest day of my life, besides the birth of my children, was when I got married to my wife. That feeling is probably one of the most common amongst human beings, and it is a feeling that should not be denied to LGBTI Australians. This parliament should do its job as a representative democracy and vote to end legalised discrimination against LGBTI Australians. This parliament should do its job, as it has done for the last century, in resolving issues of fundamental moral questions to this country, instead of pandering to the worst elements of society. I stand for doing the job of this parliament. I stand up and say we should have marriage equality right now. We should end this and oppose this wasteful and divisive plebiscite.
I move:
That the motion be put.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Mr Speaker, I am being deprived of my right to speak on this bill.
The member for Gorton will resume his seat.
I am being denied the right to speak—
The member for Gorton will resume his seat. The question is this bill be now read a third time.
Concerning the motion that stands in my name, notice No. 5, I propose to move at this stage—because it is almost half past one—that No. 5 of government business be postponed until a later hour this day. To explain to the Manager of Opposition Business in the House—because I have not had the chance to discuss it with him—the motion was to allow Joko Widodo to address the parliament on the Thursday of the next sitting week. That has been moved to the Monday, as I understand it. As a consequence, that notice will no longer be moved. I will move the correct one at the appropriate time.
I thank the Leader of the House. The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
During the break between sitting weeks, many Australians will be celebrating Deepavali. Even though I am a little early, I would like to extend every best wish to those celebrating Deepavali.
Deepavali, also known as Diwali, is the festival of lights. It is a moment when people of Hindu, Sikh and Jain faiths celebrate the triumph of light over dark. It is an important day when friends and family gather, often to dance and share food or a meal. These celebrations have a strong symbolic nature—the triumph of good over evil, of knowledge over ignorance.
It is also a time for us to reflect on those less fortunate than us and to appreciate the peace and harmony in which we live in Australia. It is a chance for us to celebrate the communities that make up the rich tapestry of modern Australian culture. Lights will be on in suburbs around Australia, from Toongabbie, Penrith and Harris Park to Campbelltown, Dandenong and Springvale.
The Diwali festival brings faiths and cultures together in its uplifting spirit. It has deep cultural importance to the Hindu, Sikh and Jain communities and it is an example of all Australians embracing our multicultural heritage. People from around the world who have come to call Australia home have brought their rich traditions with them, and we are a better nation for it.
May the light of diyas illuminate your life, and Deepavali bring you health, wealth and prosperity. Shubh Deepavali.
I rise today to speak on an insidious issue that has affected many throughout my community, and right around Australia. I am talking about the heartbreaking number of Indigenous Australians who take their own lives each year. Sadly, my electorate of Durack is at the forefront of this issue, with the Kimberley having a suicide rate seven times the Australian average.
I am glad to say that I am part of a government that is taking this issue seriously, and to report that there was a suicide prevention roundtable convened in the Kimberley, in Broome, last Friday. Present were the very capable health minister, Sussan Ley; the Assistant Minister for Health, Ken Wyatt; the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, together with a number of health professionals and stakeholders. This roundtable was the first step towards the government creating a suicide prevention hub in the Kimberley. We learnt that we must look closely at what is working on the ground and focus on the factors which lead to someone taking their own life, such as domestic violence, sexual assault, and drug and alcohol abuse.
This incredibly complex and difficult issue has been a challenge for successive governments since Indigenous suicide became a significant problem in the 1960s. I am proud to be part of a government that is listening to the Indigenous community, and is committed to providing robust, appropriate programs that will help to curb the current rates of Indigenous suicide.
This Saturday, I will be joining the Deaf Festival, with the deaf community, on the banks of the Parramatta River, where we will celebrate. The festival is part of the National Week of Deaf People, when we celebrate our deaf community and their language and culture. This year's theme is 'With Auslan right, we are equal'. This theme highlights the importance of this unique language. A deaf child, from birth, needs to learn the concepts of language as they grow. In parliament this week, we spoke about the deaf community. I am excited—I am; I am excited—to be joining in the Deaf Festival.
Ms Owens simultaneously delivered her speech in Australian Sign Language—
I thank the member for Parramatta and I acknowledge that that is the first time I have seen Auslan spoken in this House.
The announcement by Monash University, in my electorate of La Trobe, that they were withdrawing their courses from the Berwick campus came as quite a shock to my electorate. But today I am happy to announce the great news that, after fighting alongside the local community and residents and working with Minister Simon Birmingham, Federation University Australia has come to the table and will be offering courses from 2017.
I understand the importance and value of higher education not only for individual students but for the flow-on benefits it creates both socially and economically. Having a university and research campus in Berwick is a huge advantage for our local community. Federation University will offer 15 different courses at the Berwick campus in 2017 and will assume full responsibility in 2018, while Monash will continue to offer around five courses next year.
Innovation and entrepreneurship have been a huge influence in La Trobe, things I have fought hard for. So I am pleased to announce that these two factors will be reflected in all courses offered by Federation University. This focus is to ensure students' employability skills and job outcomes in the future. Federation University has committed to working closely with local business to deepen engagement on STEM skills—science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This is a great day for La Trobe.
Three years ago this week, on Thursday, 17 October, hundreds of homes in the Blue Mountains were destroyed by two fires. Mine was among them, and this week has reinforced to me that anniversaries can be harder than you think. It was not just those who lost homes who suffered. But we are a resilient community, and I want to highlight two of the amazing things I have witnessed since the fires.
One is a remarkable couple, Mary-Lou and Jenny. Mary-Lou noticed that, within only a couple of days, the bush was fighting back—green shoots, the return of insects, and new life all around. They turned her photographs into a book called As the Smoke Clears. I recommend you go to the Facebook page. Tens of thousands of dollars raised has gone into projects like Mount Victoria Public School's garden and the local park in Emma Parade.
The other is that the students at Winmalee High School earlier this year put the personal stories from the fire into a play called Straw Hats, Thongs and Toothbrushes. Drama teacher Madeleine Sheehy had the idea to continue the healing process. The students interviewed friends and family, teachers, the mayor, RFS volunteers and others involved in the disaster and the recovery process. The play makes you laugh and cry. These students are now the proud recipients of a Resilient Australia Award, announced this week. I want to thank Principal Katrina Middlebrook for her ongoing efforts to make sure the trauma of 2013 leaves as little of a scar as possible on the youth who went through it.
I rise to pay tribute in this parliament to Richard Hockey, who passed away last weekend and was a much loved member of my community and the Liberal Party in North Sydney. For many of us in this place, he was well known as the father of my predecessor, Joe Hockey. Joe held extraordinary pride in his father as an example of the success of those who have migrated to Australia, often in incredibly difficult circumstances.
Richard Hockey was born in Bethlehem to Armenian and Palestinian parents. His childhood was not easy. Never knowing his father, his mother struggled to support her two sons. Madonna King wrote in her biography of Joe that:
In 1948, Richard had crossed the Jordan River from its West Bank, determined to pursue a new life that might be rich with potential; he dreamt of finding a new homeland, less cursed by entrenched rivalries.
That new homeland was to be Australia and, through sheer hard work, he and his soon to be wife, Beverley, made a successful future for their family in Sydney. He was forever grateful to Australia. Initially a strong Labor supporter, he named his son Joseph Benedict after Chifley. He did, however, see the light during the period of the Whitlam government and the ravages it caused to many small businesses, like his own.
Many of us began our political journey as Young Liberals alongside Joe, experiencing his father's warmth and generosity. He was a great father to Joe and his siblings. But, with his trademark beret and good humour, he was a fatherly figure for all of us who came within his orbit. I extend my deep sympathies to Richard's family—to Beverley, Joe, Colin, Michael and Juanita. Richard will be sorely missed.
I want to associate my comments with those of the member for North Sydney and extend my condolences to Joe and his family.
I rise to congratulate Eastern Creek Public School on a remarkable celebration. Eastern Creek Public School celebrated its 150th anniversary yesterday—a terrific achievement and a sign of the region's enduring importance in our area. This milestone offers a wonderful opportunity to reflect upon the history of Eastern Creek Public School and the important contribution it has made to so many students, past and present. The school started from humble beginnings in the early months of 1866 in a room in Thomas Dean's inn, with just one tutor. By 1870, the school enrolment was 35 pupils, and the rest is obviously history. As they mark 150 years of success, they have every reason to be proud of the school's past and to be excited about its future. I am certain that Eastern Creek Public School will continue to make a positive impact on students' lives and continue to prepare them to engage successfully with the world, for many years to come.
I deeply regret I was unable to join you on this occasion because of this place. But I wish to commend all the staff, including Principal Wesley Chia, the teachers, students, P&C members, families and the community on reaching a historic milestone. I do not expect that much of the cake has survived, but if it has just remember your federal member of parliament. Congratulations, once again, on a terrific achievement.
Last week was Mental Health Week. Despite the fact that one in five Australians experience mental illness every year and nearly half will experience mental illness in their lifetime, it is still a hidden disease. It does not show outward scars and can easily be missed. For these reasons, it has remained out of the broader public conversation for a long time. Even now, with more and more people opening up about their struggles with mental illness, it is still a topic that deserves more attention and compassion. We need to understand and be sensitive towards the symptoms.
The recent actions on court by Nick Kyrgios may not be unprofessional or immature but those of someone who is struggling to cope with the pressures that come from performing in the public eye 24/7. His mental state may have been strained to breaking point by the constant attacks by the media and others since his overnight celebrity status at Wimbledon in 2014.
I am very pleased that Tennis Australia offered him a reduction of his ban if he sought professional help, and I am particularly happy that he has taken up this option. The seeking of help is courageous and sometimes the hardest part. This should be a potent reminder that these issues can affect anybody. Nick needs the understanding and sensitivity that any young man needs as they grow to full mental and emotional maturity.
Last month, I had the chance to meet the McEncroe family, the children of three brothers—Frank, Leo and Gerard. You may remember that Frank McEncroe is the inventor of the Chiko Roll—a debate that we have had in this place before. His brother's children wanted to give me more of an insight into the Chiko Roll story. See, it actually began as the 'snack roll'. The McEncroe brothers were dairy farmers in Kennington, but they did not quite like dairy farming—it was hard work. So they established a catering business—McEncroe Catering Services. It was these three brothers that actually invented the Chiko Roll. Frank was the entrepreneur. He was the one who eventually moved to Melbourne to franchise and change it from the snack roll to the Chiko Roll. But the other two brothers stayed in Bendigo, and their children remember fondly and not so fondly selling the Chiko Roll at local football grounds, at local shows and at local pubs. So it is indisputable that the real home of the Chiko Roll is Bendigo. This weekend is the Bendigo show and I am sure that many locals will continue to enjoy this great Bendigo delicacy.
I rise to acknowledge Australia's greatest female track cyclist, Anna Meares, who announced her retirement from the sport recently. Anna has won the 500 metre world time trial championship on four occasions, and she is a gold medallist at both the Commonwealth and Olympic Games. At the 2015 World Championships, Anna Meares won gold in the keirin—her 11th world title in total, making her the most decorated track cyclist of all time.
Anna Meares started competitive cycling at the age of 11, driving two hours to the nearest cycling track at Mackay to train. During the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens, she won a gold medal and set a new world record in the women's 500-metre time trial. Anna made a very remarkable comeback from a very serious accident at the World Cup in Los Angeles in 2008, when she broke her neck. She fractured her C2 vertebra, dislocated her right shoulder, and suffered torn ligaments and tendons and a heavily bruised right hip and skin abrasions as a result of crashing at 65 kilometres an hour on the steeply banked velodrome. But she was back on the bike in 10 days. After intensive rehabilitation, and through the points she had secured prior to the crash, she fought her way back to qualify for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, where she won silver. Of course, she was the flag-bearer and a medallist at this year's Rio Olympics. There have been many costs for Anna, both physical and emotional, in her remarkable cycling career. Anna, thank you for the memories and good luck for the future.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is the most significant reform to national health and welfare services since Medicare. As you would expect, the NDIS is a Labor initiative—one which, to their credit, the parties of the right have been prepared to support. By 2020, annual NDIS funding will top $21 billion and account for a little over one per cent of GDP. Around 460, 000 Australians will be directly supported.
I recently visited a local service provider of long experience with the Hon. Jenny Macklin, shadow minister for families and social services. It is devastating to hear from my constituents, some of whom I looked after as children, that they fear they will be worse off under the NDIS. I have recently been recontacted by the service provider with reports that this will be the case—reports of families in my area suggesting that they will consider relinquishing care of their family member with a disability as a result of restrictions to respite care; reports of people with a disability having to pay out of their own pockets for any form of transport delivered by service providers; and reports of participants who cannot read or write being sent crucial planning documentation in written form, with no alternative form of communication available to them.
No one expects that everything will work perfectly from day one. These are huge reforms. But such failings and fears need to be addressed quickly and with a constructive, not a defensive, mindset. It is absolutely crucial that as a country we get this one right.
Like the people of Chisholm, I have always been a passionate supporter of the interests of ordinary working people whilst believing there is a place for unions to properly represent members' interests. However, no-one, including me and the people of Chisholm, is immune from the corruption, thuggery, assaults, bullying, and xenophobic and sexist misconduct of union officials and leaders who partner with the opposition. I have heard stories from many people in Chisholm, in particular from small to medium-sized business owners. Once, as I was attempting to drive out of my employer's factory after attending a management meeting, some unionists who had found out about my Greek heritage and that I was part of management chased me down, threw themselves on the bonnet of my car, rocked it backwards and forwards and slammed their aggressive faces against my car window, calling me a wog and other obscenities that went to my gender.
Restoring the rule of law and the Australian Building and Construction Commission is not just about curbing unlawful activity but about improving productivity. Housing affordability in Chisholm and the development of key facilities such as hospitals and roads are being negatively impacted by working days lost and 30 per cent increased costs. The Turnbull government is delivering for all those people who just want to get on with their jobs, create more jobs, grow our economy and, in turn, contribute to making Chisholm and Australia thrive.
I rise today to draw the House's attention to the need for a long-term funding commitment to the Mersey Community Hospital in north-west Tasmania. My community is sick and tired of the hospital being used as a political football. The Minister for Health and Aged Care has inflamed the situation by refusing to make any commitments about the future of the Mersey. The community accepts the need for negotiations between the state and Commonwealth governments over the scope of services to be delivered, but what the community does not accept is short-term agreements or, worse, the refusal of the minister to guarantee future funding.
The situation has been exacerbated by yesterday's Senate estimates hearings, where departmental officials also refused to guarantee anything about the Mersey's future, despite there being a reduced allocation of funding in the forward estimates. The officials stated funding had been reduced to a base level but were silent as to whether extra funds would be forthcoming to match any future service delivery. It is equally disappointing that, despite it being well known that the current contract for the Mersey expires in eight months time, the department revealed that negotiations between the state and Commonwealth did not commence until May of this year.
The actions of the Commonwealth in this area are just not good enough. What our community and staff at the Mersey are after is long-term certainty. I also have to put on the record my disappointment that four weeks after I wrote to the minister on this issue there has been no reply. (Time expired)
Rugby League holds a special place in the hearts and minds of people on the Central Coast, with many NRL teams having links to local clubs, as well as, of course, the ongoing push to have our own team based in Gosford. So today I want to draw to the attention of the House an important event that took place at Leichhardt in Sydney over the recent long weekend: the NSW Aboriginal Rugby League Knockout. This annual event is hosted by the Redfern All Blacks in Leichhardt and involves male and female players of all ages. Founded nearly 50 years ago by the Koori United team, the event promotes keeping Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people fit and healthy, and also provides business opportunities for Indigenous entrepreneurs and local businesses. So it was great to see our region proudly represented through the Central Coast United Aboriginal Sporting Association, who were supported by the Bungree Aboriginal Association and the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council. Those who took part include Grant Bailey, Shane and Justin Wooden, Travis Edwards, Brad Bennett, Koen King, Michael Wright, Kane Ralph, Les Luland, Mason Craig, Lailen Adams, Mel and Donna Sutton, Tyra McEwen, Rebecca Young and Brittany Starr, and their coaches, Adam McEwen, Gary Luland and Frank Green. I have no doubt of the capacity of one or more of these young sportspeople to become a future Greg Inglis or Johnathan Thurston.
The event is backed through a $60,000 grant from the Turnbull government to support Indigenous employment outcomes during the competition. (Time expired)
I am still disappointed and somewhat in shock at the press reports yesterday that the Minister for Social Services is pushing to purge the board of the National Disability Insurance Scheme by sacking its chairman, Bruce Bonyhady. Dr Bonyhady's work in establishing the NDIS has been widely regarded as exemplary, and it is a crying shame that the government are scapegoating him for the problems that have emerged under their stewardship of the NDIS. Mr Bonyhady worked very closely with the Gillard Labor government. Together, under the leadership of Prime Minister Gillard and the now Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, they created the biggest social policy reform since Medicare.
There are residents in my electorate of Wills for whom the NDIS will provide care and support services which they are in desperate need of. I have close family and friends who are waiting for the NDIS, and I know the significant impact it will have on their lives. The NDIS will be transformative for them, and they are the reason that I must condemn what is occurring under this government and its incompetence. I call on the minister to take responsibility for the government's mismanagement of the NDIS. The buck must stop with him. And I remind him that this is—or should be—about more than just politics.
I rise to condemn the Turnbull government's plans to introduce a 'fun tax', with which they will be charging more for entertainment visas for international acts to tour Australia. The increase in the visa fees will have a detrimental effect on the music industry and on regional economies. This is a major concern in my electorate of Richmond, which is the home to the greatest music festivals in the country. These, of course, include: Bluesfest; Splendour in the Grass and the Byron Falls festival.
From November, the Turnbull government plans to remove a $7,200 group discount cap on the price of visas for entertainers coming to Australia. This will then potentially see a 600 per cent increase in visa fees for large touring parties and multi-act festivals. Major festivals, which can have up to 200 international acts, could expect a price jump from the previous cap of $7,200 to well over $55,000. This will ultimately lead to higher ticket prices, fewer tours, less live music and less job opportunities.
The fact is that large music festivals inject massive economic benefits into regional communities like mine, which has those great festivals I mentioned earlier. We have tens of thousands of people coming to our area. It makes a huge difference to our local tourism and our hospitality businesses. Today, I call on the Turnbull government to not proceed with the unfair visa fee increases and to cancel the 'fun tax' immediately.
Next Friday 28 October is Day for Daniel. On 7 December 2003, 13-year-old Daniel Morcombe set out from his home at Palmwoods on the Sunshine Coast to catch a bus to go Christmas shopping for his family using money earned by picking fruit. Daniel never did his Christmas shopping. He was abducted from the local bus stop and murdered by a serial paedophile, Brett Peter Cowan. The case became the biggest in Queensland's criminal history. It was eight years before Cowan was arrested and charged and before Daniels remains were found. It was a further three years before Cowan was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The first Day for Daniel was held in 2005 while his extraordinary parents, Bruce and Denise, were still living in the hell of not knowing what had actually happened. Their inspired decision was to turn Daniel's tragic story into a message of hope to educate our children and our community on the need for greater awareness and personal responsibility around child safety. This became the Morcombes' greatest, selfless and courageous work and their pledge to Daniel's memory. It is why today you see a sea red ribbons around the chamber.
Colleagues, today I sing the praises of the Wangaratta Jazz and Blues Festival, which is on the last weekend of October. The festival is an international hit with the best of jazz and blues and includes the National Jazz Awards. It drums up around $3 million worth of business for Wangaratta. Its strength is harmonising its national profile with local community. The CBD, King George Gardens, river precinct and Anglican cathedral come alive with the sound of jazz. Homegrown artworks decorate the CBD and visitors are known to tango with the locals through the Home Host program. Residents are thrilled to get discount passes to the performances. Local musicians have the opportunity to perform with James Morrison and other jazz greats. But best of all, I will make a special call-out to Jazzaratta, a community big band that has been fostering the love of jazz and blues in Wangaratta for over twenty years.
If you come to Wang, head south. Come and check us out. Look out for jazz rats: Michael Braendler, Colin Andrews, Ian Wade, Callum Morrison and the rest on the community stage. Congratulations to Paul Squires, Alan Clarke at the Rural City of Wangaratta, the volunteers and all of the Friends of the Festival. I know the recent flood has been a bit of a blue note for planning, but we have pulled through with skill. Head on down the highway; come and join us at Wangaratta on the last weekend of October.
Goldstein residents regularly contact me about the importance of free speech. My commitment is deep and unflinching.
Then why did you gag the debate, Freedom Boy?
Perhaps that is why the opposition thinks they are clever in attempts to offend, insult or denigrate me by using the nickname 'Freedom Boy' when I speak in this chamber. To the opposition, I say: feel free. It is a badge I wear with pride. Today, I publicly restate my commitment to free speech, because some of us never lost the faith. I understand that free speech central to people's sense of security in society.
Under federal law, we now have the Bolt case, the QUT case, the ridiculous case brought by Senator Leyonhjelm and the Bill Leak case, as well as a case against Archbishop Porteus under Tasmania's similar law. In light of these cases, the Australian Human Rights Commission said they would be open to suggestions for reform. I welcome that opportunity. We can design a law that stops harassment and intimidation to protect vulnerable people while also removing this culture of censorship.
This debate exposes Labor. Left to pursue their own devices, they will ideologically pursue laws to decide what Australians can think, what they can hear and what they can say, and that is at the expense of our time-honoured freedoms. Labor once defended our culture; today they mock it. As a Liberal, I will proudly defend the Australian way of life against their cultural relativism. So je suis Charlie, but also je suis QUT students, Bolt, Leyonhjelm, Leak, Porteus and anyone else who— (Time expired)
A few weeks ago, I attended the launch of a new Indigenous business, Irranda Holdings Pty Ltd, which is owned by a remarkable man, Colin Rogan Jr. Colin is a former full-time member of the ADF and a current reservist with NORFORCE, who is currently on patrol with NORFORCE. Colin and Irranda Holdings in partnership with a well-established Darwin business, Action Sheetmetal, which is owned by Harry Maschke.
They are producing thermal break cushion head boxes and other air-conditioning ducting, all made from materials solely sourced in Australia, and distributing these to the Northern Territory market. Together, Colin and Harry have an absolute passion to provide training and work opportunities for young Indigenous jobseekers and students. Most of these students attend Kormilda College and are part of the Clontarf Foundation program. I commend Colin Rogan, a business leader and outstanding Indigenous role model, for his faith and belief in the future of Kormilda College students.
The new Northern Territory Labor government has a similar faith in those students and has backed the school. I am glad to see that the federal government has finally come to the party, which is in the best interest of the students into the future.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members statements has concluded.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Last night on the 7.30 program the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, said a deal to trade guns for votes by the minister for immigration was not authorised. Is that accurate? Was the minister acting without the authority of the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah?
I thank the honourable member for her question. Obviously the government has been very clear in relation to these matters. No guns have been imported as proposed by Senator Leyonhjelm. As the Minister for Justice has spoken about in recent days, we put a ban in place which did not allow those guns to come in. The arrangement at the time was that there would be a COAG process, as has been the case back to the Howard days when the arrangement was put together, and the arrangement was that the premiers and the chief ministers would deal with that consideration on the advice of the police ministers and the police commissioners, and that is as has happened today. To go to the substantive issue—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
I will come back to the honourable member's question in a second—the issue is that this government has been very consistent and strong when it comes to gun laws. We have implemented national security legislation which has given our agencies, both policing and intelligence agencies, the best possible chances of dealing with crime. Labor has opposed us at every turn.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Isaacs and the member for Sydney!
Labor has opposed us in relation to legislation, including mandatory sentencing—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is warned! The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
On direct relevance. The question was very specific—the minister said he would come back to the issue and I ask him to do so.
The minister is in order.
To go to the honourable member's question, there were discussions between me and Minister Keenan in relation to what approach there should be. Labor had proposed some amendments to a piece of national security legislation which would have weakened that legislation, and we wanted Senator Leyonhjelm, Senator Day and the other Independent senators to support our national security legislation. It was in relation to the collection of biometrics at airports, and we wanted that bill through the parliament. There was a discussion, as Senator Leyonhjelm mentioned this morning. I had a meeting with him and Senator Day in Senator Day's office. I have made checks this morning and I am advised there was no correspondence between my office and the office of the then Prime Minister. But there is no question that at an advisers level there would have been discussions around this issue. To suggest that somehow Minister Keenan and I entered into these arrangements without there being discussion between officers does not follow—there no doubt would have been discussions. As I say, I am advised there was no correspondence from my office to the then PM. That goes directly to the member's question.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's national economic plan? How will re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission boost economic growth, deliver more jobs and improve productivity in the workplace?
I thank the honourable member for her question. We took our national economic plan to the election, and we won the election. We took to the election a carefully considered set of measures which we know will deliver the economic growth and the opportunities our children and grandchildren deserve. The Labor Party, on the other hand, went to the election with an antibusiness, higher tax, higher debt, antigrowth agenda which would inevitably have restricted the opportunities, shrunk the horizon, for our children and our grandchildren—the ones for whom we should care the most.
We promised middle income tax cuts and we have delivered them—more than half a million middle-class Australians will be paying 32½ per cent tax instead of going up into the higher 37 per cent tax bracket. We are pursuing thousands of export opportunities for Australian businesses. We are continuing to open up new opportunities for our exports. We have seen, just in the last week, the signing of the new expanded Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, building on the deals with China, Korea and Japan. We know that this is going to be, in Singapore, a big win for our services sector—education, engineering, accounting, legal services. Singapore is the financial hub of South-East Asia, and we now have the access to it that Australian businesses need.
And, we are standing up to union thuggery. The construction sector employs a million Australians. It is vital to our economic prospects. Its efficiency, its lawfulness, determines the cost of everything we build, whether it is a road, whether it is a school, whether it is a dam, whether it is a hospital or whether it is an apartment building which a young couple may want to buy their first home in. All of that is determined by whether the rule of law prevails—and we know it does not. And we know why it does not. The thuggery we see is having a massive cost. Consider, just today, reports of the CFMEU's unlawful action, adding hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost to projects in Queensland, including the Sunshine Coast University Hospital project costing Lend Lease up to $100,000 a day. Who pays for that? The taxpayer. Who suffers reduced services? Citizens. We are standing up for the rule of law as part of our national economic plan to drive jobs and growth, and we call on those opposite to join us in securing our future.
My question is to the Minister for Justice. Last night on 7.30 the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, said a deal to trade guns for votes by the Minister for Justice was not authorised. Is that accurate? Was the minister acting without the authority of the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah?
I have the great advantage when I am questioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about gun regulation in Australia of actually knowing something about the subject matter. That does give me a great advantage in this matter. The premise of her question is completely and utterly false. The idea that this government in any way, shape or form did what she is alleging—somehow traded on gun laws—is completely and utterly false. I already set out in the House on Tuesday exactly what has happened here. It was a very simple process that resulted in a conversation between the then government and Senator Leyonhjelm. We put a sunset clause on a regulation that restricted the import of lever-action shotguns with a capacity of over five rounds, and we did that at his request as part of a conversation that we were having with him. I had hoped that we would have concluded the negotiations with the states, which actually have responsibility for classifying guns in Australia, during that 12-month period. There was no understanding with anybody, including Senator Leyonhjelm, that the government would do anything other than extend that ban if that agreement had not been put in place. Indeed, I can read you the specific words from the regulation that we passed through the Senate on 7 August 2015. The regulation said:
… a temporary prohibition on the importation of those firearms is being put in place. This is an interim measure until the review and update of the National Firearms Agreement are completed.
And we used very similar language when we renewed that regulation, when that sunset clause came into effect 12 months later.
Mr Speaker—
Has the minister concluded his answer?
No, I have not.
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, I do not see how the minister can be directly relevant without referring to the former Prime Minister.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting. You will understand that I will always hear the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. I do not extend that more widely than that. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that he cannot insist that a minister use certain words. The minister is being directly relevant to the question. The Manager of Opposition Business might not like the answer but he cannot have a question asked and demand a certain answer. The minister is entirely in order.
Because the opposition knows nothing about gun regulation, I will give them a very quick guide. The states and territories classify guns in Australia according to their legality. We do that based on the advice we get from our law enforcement agencies. The Commonwealth controls the importation of guns. Of course on all matters in relation to this, on all matters in relation to the conversations that we had with Senator Leyonhjelm, I have been very up-front about what happened. He obviously has a different view about it, but the government's position has been entirely consistent.
On the question about my interaction with the Prime Minister's office in relation to this: we interacted in the usual way by keeping the Prime Minister's office appraised of what was going on.
My question is to . Will the update the House on the coalition government's $2.5 billion water infrastructure commitment? Are there any threats to the timeliness of construction and the cost of these significant nation-building projects?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Yes, impediments have been put forward, especially by militant groups such as the CFMEU. We have a vision for Central Queensland with such things as the Gayndah Regional Irrigation Development project and the money and wealth it will bring into that area. Also in the member for Flynn's area is Rookwood Weir, for which we have put $130 million on the table and also $2 million for the feasibility study to get this plan up and running and provide real jobs—over 2,300 jobs—and an extra $1 billion a year for the city of Rockhampton.
But what we are up against—and the member would know it quite clearly—is that as the Labor Party in Queensland heads towards elections they are more interested in Greens preferences. Their vision for their state does not go beyond the Pine River. It is a vision for Brisbane. They are happy to talk to us about Cross River Rail but they do not want to talk about the people of Central Queensland. It is an indictment on those state Labor Party members from Central Queensland who do not stand up for their area, do not stand up for the people, do not go into bat so they can actually get this delivered.
And it is something that has been picked up by all the papers, as they clearly understand that the Labor Party is not a party of vision. They are a party who believe that, rather than representing the people of Central Queensland, they should be representing the CFMEU. We saw that with the desalination plant down in Victoria., which was supposed to cost $2.9 billion and ended up costing $4 billion. And every day it costs $1.8 million and does not produce a drop of water for the people of Victoria. Those are the organisational skills you get when a party is beholden to the CFMEU. Whilst building the desalination plant, it was reported they had midweek parties with strippers and ice. They had a shop steward who tried to import $147 million worth of cannabis and got a 5½-year jail term. These are the sorts of standover tactics, the sorts of corruption, which are embedded within the CFMEU—and I have not stopped.
The CFMEU are back at work at the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games village. They are at work at the Sunshine Coast hospital. They are the sort of people who stand in the way of us building the Rookwood Weir. They are the sort of people who will stand in the way of us delivering the sort of vision that the coalition has—the vision for inland rail, the vision for dams, the vision for roads, the vision for Badgerys Creek.
But what is our problem? Our problem is the CFMEU, the Greens and the Australian Labor Party—and sometimes you cannot tell the difference between them. But they are there; they are there today. We can see on the Sunshine Coast that it is costing up to $100,000 a day. But don't worry: the Labor Party will get it back next time they get a donation!
My question is again to the Minister for Justice, and it refers to his previous statement that there was no deal with Senator Leyonhjelm. Can the minister explain why the email from his office refers to a sunset clause of 12 months 'in return for Senator Leyonhjelm's vote'?
Ms Henderson interjecting—
Member for Corangamite, I am trying to listen to the question.
Yet again that premise of the question is completely wrong. I already said in the House on Tuesday that we put a sunset clause on that regulation at the request of Senator Leyonhjelm as result of a conversation that the government was having with him. I have already explained that. I have already explained that particular matter.
I would like to remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when she was a minister in the Gillard and Rudd governments, lever-action shotguns were categorised in category A, the lowest possible licensing arrangement that we could have—the same category that we put air rifles in. The thing about category A licences is that you can have multiple weapons. In fact, if you wanted to, you could have had 100 lever-action shotguns, regardless of their capacity, regardless of their calibre. We decided that that was an inappropriate classification for that particular gun, and we started a conversation with the states and territories about what that appropriate classification would be. We have been negotiating with them ever since.
Now, I would have liked that negotiation to have been completed within the 12 months before that sunset clause was exercised, but it was not, so we did exactly what we said we would do: we continued the restriction of the import of lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of over five until those negotiations were concluded. The government's position has been the same—in 2014, 2015, up till today.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a copy of this email that shows that the sunset clause was in the terms: 'for a vote'.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, earlier today representatives from the 100 per cent Australian owned consortium, BBHO, attended Parliament House, and they are here in the gallery. Do you agree, as a matter of principle and for the national interest, that if there is a credible, commercially competitive, 100 per cent Australian bid for an iconic Australian asset such as S Kidman and Co cattle empire that the local bid should take precedence over any other bids involving overseas interests?
I thank the honourable member for her question and I applaud her patriotism. We always welcome Australians investing in Australian agriculture. But, as you know, the decisions to make investments are taken by individual commercial enterprises. There is a level of federal regulation, which is, of course, as you understand, the foreign takeovers legislation administered by the Treasurer, so I will ask him to further respond to your question.
Thank you, Prime Minister, and I thank the member for her question. As she would know, as Treasurer, I rejected the proposal for foreign ownership of Kidman and Co. I rejected it; those opposite were going to approve it. We rejected it, and that has provided the opportunity for bidders to come forward to purchase that property.
It is Kidman and Co that is selling that property not the government—no-one else. They are in charge of the process for deciding which bids they will accept or not accept, and they will obviously be subject to the legislation governing foreign investment in Australia. So, I am pleased about the fact, having rejected the foreign ownership proposal for Kidman, which was going to be approved by those opposite had they won the election, that now there are other bids coming forward. When those bids come forward we will consider those to the extent that they require the approval of the government in relation to any foreign ownership component of those.
But, given we are on the topic of foreign investment, I am very pleased that in New South Wales there has been the announcement today that, following our decision to reject the foreign ownership proposal for Ausgrid, there has been a fully Australian owned proposal that has come forward. To achieve the sale of Ausgrid in New South Wales and that it remains under Australian ownership has been facilitated through the operations of the decisions here. But I particularly wish to commend the New South Wales Treasurer, Gladys Berejiklian, and the New South Wales Premier, Mike Baird, for what they have done to ensure that these assets can be recycled and invested back into important infrastructure in New South Wales. Both of these decisions, whether on Ausgrid or Kidman, show that the government is doing its job when it comes to policing foreign investment in this country, and that is bringing forward Australian investment—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. Has the Treasurer concluded his answer? The Treasurer has concluded his answer.
My question is to the Treasurer. How important is a safe and productive construction industry to the national economy? Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the Australian Building and Construction Commission can better protect law-abiding and honest people on Australian building and construction sites?
I thank the member for Wright for his question and his keen interest in ensuring that the rule of law returns to building and construction sites right across Queensland—right across the country. We know that lawlessness on building and construction sites around the country could be prevented by the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This lawlessness is choking productivity in that sector, increasing the cost of projects by some 30 per cent, which threatens investment in this country, which means it is more expensive to build hospitals, schools and all of this public infrastructure, as well as important private infrastructure, which is frustrated by the lawlessness on these sites. He knows that we have already mentioned this week that the—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Kennedy on a point of order?
No.
Okay. That's alright. That's your exercise for the day. It's fine. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr Katter interjecting—
You said you didn't have a point of order.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have heard of the instances where the CFMEU have sought to shut down sites because they do not like the tiler or they do not like the security firm, who are being blackballed by unions in favour of their mates. They will even shut down a site because they are not going to fly a CFMEU flag from a crane in Adelaide. What we also know about the CFMEU and other militant unions that are involved on these sites is that serious criminal activity takes place. Last year, Commissioner Ken Lay stated that there was intelligence which indicates that people who are related to bikies or organised motorcycle gangs are selling drugs on building sites. Operation Warrior, in Queensland—the CMC's biggest ever covert operation in 2012—found that a drug ring mastermind, Daniel Kalaja, also used a friend of the BLF union to score a job on a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded Gold Coast university hospital project, despite never holding a job—never holding a legitimate or honest job. The CMC has already linked drug kingpin Kalaja to two union officials who have been jailed for their part in one of Queensland's biggest drug rings. Wayne Joseph Carter, a BLF organiser, was sentenced to eight years in jail after he and his brother joined Kalaja in the trade of drugs, including: methamphetamine; MDMA, ecstasy; and fantasy.
What we know is that those opposite like to say there is no link between organised motorcycle gangs and militant unions on building construction sites, but the people of Australia know that they are carving up building sites like drug kingpins carve up their distribution networks across our cities. That is why the ABCC needs to be restored. Safety and health in workplaces means you can go to work, without being sold drugs by people that unions let onto building sites.
Mr Wilkie interjecting—
Just before I call the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Denison, the Independent question has been asked.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to ask a question.
No. The member for Denison will resume his seat. The rules for question time are very clear. It is the Leader of the Opposition's call. The member for Denison can ask his question the next time the Independents have a question in the next sitting day.
My question is to the Prime Minister. According to former Prime Minister Abbott, the minister for immigration and the Minister for Justice made a deal to trade guns for votes, without the authority of the then Prime Minister. What steps has the Prime Minister taken to determine whether what the former Prime Minister said was true or whether the minister for immigration or the Minister for Justice are telling the truth instead and that the Prime Minister's office was in fact advised?
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.
The honourable member speaks about guns. He speaks about safety. The truth that is, as we know, is that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegal weapons, unlawfully imported—smuggled, indeed—into Australia—
More often by bikies.
And more often by bikies, as the Treasurer observed. That is the fact.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bendigo then left the chamber.
We have a very high standard of firearm regulation in Australia—the envy of the world. But what we have is a very significant black market trade in illegal weapons smuggled into Australia. Our law enforcement agencies do everything they can to stamp it out. Our job as parliamentarians is to give them the tools to do that job. That is why we have sought to persuade the opposition to back a minimum mandatory sentence of five years for gun smuggling, for illegal trafficking in guns, and to double the maximum penalties from 10 to 20 years. We get in response the claim that the opposition does not as a matter of principle—
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
On direct relevance, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your rule regarding preambles being allowed in questions. We are now halfway into it, and the question is quite specific.
I have heard the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mrs Sudmalis interjecting—
The member for Gilmore will cease interjecting. I have made very clear my approach to preambles in the interest of free-flowing debate. I have also made clear in rulings in terms of answers being relevant to the policy area, which the Prime Minister is. The question had a number of aspects to it. The Prime Minister is entirely relevant to the question.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. So we have asked the opposition to support these tougher sentences to help us stamp out gun smuggling, the illegal traffic in guns, that provides the weapons that are used in the vast majority of gun crimes—figures of well over 90 per cent, in fact, when I say the 'vast majority'. So, if the opposition is serious about the fair, appropriate and efficient regulation of guns to keep Australians safe, they would back us. But, no; as usual, far from being interested in principle, they are more interested in politics.
Turning to the specific question, I have made inquiries of my ministers and I can say to the House that, as a result of those inquiries, I am satisfied that the Minister for Justice acted in the full knowledge of the Prime Minister's office at that time.
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand is warned!
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House this government's commitment to ensure that employer and employee organisations always act in the best interests of their members, particularly in light of their connection to other registered organisations?
I thank the member for Moore for his question. He, like me and everyone else on this side of the House, supports honest unions and we support honest union leaders, and we want to make sure that, through the Registered Organisations Commission, they remain an important part of the system. What the Registered Organisations Commission bill will do is remove from the system dishonest union leaders and rogue unions that are causing the kind of trouble that hurts honest union leaders and, of course, through them hurts the workers that they are supposed to represent. That is why I cannot for the life of me work out why the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party oppose honest unions and honest union leaders, because you would think, with the Labor Party's links to the union movement, they would want to have honest union leaders and honest unions as part of their organisation.
It was Mark Latham who wrote some years ago, in 2012, that each of the health service unions' troubles can be traced back to the 'corrosive impact of Labor factional politics', and the reverse argument is also true. We are seeing that corrosive impact of factional civil war in the ALP happening right now. Right now it is on display in Victoria. The Leader of the Opposition has shoehorned his friend Kimberley Kitching into the Senate vacancy created by Senator Conroy. This has been done against the wishes of both his factional allies and factional adversaries alike. Even the member for Grayndler has refused to endorse the choice of Kimberley Kitching for the Senate. He said, when asked about it this week, that he had never heard of this woman—never heard of her. He did not know who she was. He did not know all the candidates. He could not possibly comment. Everyone knows not a leaf falls in the Labor Party forest without the member for Grayndler knowing it. He is burying his head in his paper—no, he has looked up now. The truth is: the member for Grayndler knows everything that is going on in the Labor Party across the country. He knows all about Kimberley Kitching, but he was not prepared to back her in, because he knows that the war in the Victorian Labor Party is out of control.
We have Senator Gavin Marshall, on the left, attacking, with a political hatchet, his colleagues this week, targeting the member for Scullin, saying he is going to take his preselection away. He was attacking the member for Ballarat and, amazingly, of all things, attacking the revered and venerable member for Jagajaga—loved on all sides of the House, but not by Senator Gavin Marshall. So we are trying to help the Leader of the Opposition. We are trying to help him with the Registered Organisations Commission bill. We are trying to clean up the unions for him, because we know their inextricable links to the Labor Party, and yet he will not help himself. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Today it is reported that the Deputy Prime Minister supports the New South Wales Deputy Premier taking a proposal to the New South Wales cabinet to allow the importation of the Adler of gun. Is the position of the Deputy Prime Minister the position of the government? And is that position consistent with the advice or recommendations of the Australian Federal Police?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Can I refer the honourable member to the statement issued this morning by the New South Wales police minister, Troy Grant, who might say is a former police officer and, indeed, a decorate one. The minister noted that he was supporting the Commonwealth ban on imported lever-action shotguns with a capacity of more than five rounds until the gun is reclassified. He said: 'The New South Wales government supports the strengthening of classification of the Adler A110 shotgun from its current A category to a tighter one.' 'Our position,' the minister said, 'represents a strengthening of the current A classification of the Adler, but the ultimate decision is a matter for national consensus.' The position of the Commonwealth, based on the advice we have received from our Federal Police and other security advisers is that the classification for the lever-action shotgun should—indeed, as Mr Grant has noted there—be tightened. Currently—and this has been the case since 1996—lever-action shotguns are classified as A, and the consideration that is being given by the justice or police ministers is how it should be increased. The concern has particularly been for the shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than five rounds. That is the class of shotgun that has been banned from importation since last year.
It is the state and territory ministers' legislation that regulates these guns. It is very important to recognise this. The Commonwealth obviously controls importation, but the regulation, the categorisation, the licensing of firearms is a matter for state and territory jurisdictions. So we are encouraging the states to come to a consensus which will see a reclassification, with an appropriately tighter classification, on those lever-action weapons. Of course, once that consensus is reached and the reclassification is fully implemented then, consistent with the arrangements described on several occasions, as this ban has now gone through three iterations, the ban would be lifted and the import arrangements would then be consistent with the reclassification. That is our commitment: keeping Australians safe; ensuring that we hold the ring; keeping those guns out of the country until the appropriate reclassification by the state and territory police ministers is agreed to.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the steps the government has taken to protect Australians from dangerous non-citizens? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for North Sydney for his question and his passion, which we all share, for keeping our country as safe as possible. It is the case that this government has cancelled a record number of visas of non-citizens. They are people who were involved in all sorts of crimes, there is no question about that. There has been a dramatic increase over the last 12 months, particularly compared to the last 12 months that Labor was in government.
It is indisputable, of course, that there are significant links between the CFMEU and outlaw motorcycle gang members.
Opposition members interjecting—
This of course gets the Labor Party excited and they interject on those occasions. Do you know why? $10 million comes from the CFMEU into the coffers of the Australian Labor Party over recent years, and the CFMEU seek to defend the bikies because the bikies provide the muscle on the building sites, kicking out hardworking subcontractors who go there to employ other Australians, to provide for their small businesses and to do the work they have been paid to do. We have a militant union, supported by bikies across the country, closing down worksites this very day, as reported by Renee Viellaris in The Courier-Mail today. This demonstrates the depth of involvement between the CFMEU and the Australian Labor Party and outlaw motorcycle gangs.
People might ask why this Leader of the Opposition would not stand up to the CFMEU. They might say, 'Why do you tolerate the behaviour of your officials? Why do you tolerate the behaviour of this hired muscle on building sites?' Because it increases the cost of units. When young Australians go to an open house this weekend, to a unit that they may not be able to afford or that they have been saving up for, they know that that unit is more expensive because they have seen building costs increase as a result of the involvement of the unions and bikies.
All of these people opposite who receive money from the CFMEU and the other unions can bleat all they want, but the facts remain the same. There are good unions in this country. What about the Shoppies? What if the Shoppies employed the bikies to go into Woolies, Coles and IGA and started upturning grocery aisles and muscling up to the poor shop assistants at the counter at the front of the store—would you find that acceptable? Would you find it acceptable for the bikies to be roaring in there showing off their tattoos and bashing customers as they are coming in because they should be going down this aisle and not that aisle? That is what this Labor Party has been reduced to. This weak Leader of the Opposition is completely owned and operated by union bosses across the country. He demonstrates every day that he will do anything for union bosses and nothing for the workers.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that in a previous answer today he stated that the member for Warringah was wrong when he told 7.30 that the Prime Minister's office was not informed by ministers Dutton or Keenan or their staff about the guns for votes deal?
I refer the honourable member to my previous answer, which I think was perfectly clear.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on how the government is creating jobs and economic growth through trade and investment? Is the minister aware of any threats to this economic growth?
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton is warned.
I thank the member for Page for his question. I know he is very committed to creating economic growth and driving jobs in his electorate. Like those on this side of the House, he is very committed to the coalition's agenda in relation to our free trade agreements we have put in place, helping to drive economic growth, helping to drive jobs and getting the world's preferential access into powerhouse economies.
I note that in the member for Page's own electorate Macadamia Marketing International has seen tariffs on macadamias eliminated or phased out in China, Japan and Korea under the free trade agreements that were secured by the coalition. In fact, since the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement came into force, their exports to Korea have tripled, meaning more local jobs in that economy.
I note that the member for Page also asked whether there were any threats in respect to Australia's economic growth. The sad fact is that there are threats to Australia's economic growth. They come from the Labor Party opposite and, in particular, they come from the Leader of the Opposition. I know that the Labor Party has been particularly interested in what former leaders have said. We have seen a lot of focus on that in question time. So I thought it would be educational to look at what some former leaders have said. The former Leader of the Opposition, Mark Latham, on The Bolt Report on 12 October, said, 'It's shameful that Shorten is two-faced and he really is Billy Two-Face.' As part of that interview he goes on to say that he had a very insightful conversation with this man, the Leader of the Opposition, when this man was in fact the AWU National Secretary. He quotes the Leader of the Opposition when he said, 'The members of the union want me to say that. They want to hear the sort of rhetoric against the free trade agreement, but in the parliament there you should push it through.'
So we continue to see a form from the Leader of the Opposition, a form where he will say one thing in public and a different thing behind closed doors; a form that is consistent with this Leader of the Opposition being labelled by the former leader as 'Billy Two-Face'. The fact is that there is a public Bill and there is a private Shorten, and they are two very different matters. The simple fact is that we know that this Leader of the Opposition will do the bidding of the CFMEU. We know it from Sky News, once again, because we saw a letter that was reported on Sky News from the CFMEU on Thursday, 19 September, where they said—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The member for Lyons is warned.
'Will you oppose the reintroduction of the ABCC by the Abbott government, and will you abolish the ABCC immediately upon securing government?' Then we get the response from the Leader of the Opposition: 'I commit to opposing the reintroduction of the ABCC.' Once again, 11 million reasons for the Labor Party to look the other way. (Time expired)
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that today the Prime Minister has openly contradicted the claims of the former Prime Minister on the guns for votes scandal;
(2) notes that in the first 15 sitting days of the 45th Parliament:
(a) the Government became the first majority Government in more than 50 years to lose control of the House of Representatives;
(b) the Treasurer introduced legislation containing a $107 million black hole;
(c) the Senate ran out of legislation to debate;
(d) for the first time in Federation, a Government voted to condemn itself;
(e) the former Prime Minister outflanked the current Prime Minister on his left and his right;
(f) the Prime Minister was rolled by his extreme right-wing on issue after issue;
(g) the Prime Minister condoned an Attorney-General who had misled the Parliament;
(h) the Health Department refused to endorse the Prime Minister's absolute guarantee on the cost of seeing a doctor; and
(i) the Government considered trading guns for votes; and
(3) therefore, censures the Prime Minister for 15 sitting days of unprecedented chaos from a Government in disarray.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith—
That the House:
(1) notes that today the Prime Minister has openly contradicted the claims of the former Prime Minister on the guns for votes scandal;
(2) notes that in the first 15 sitting days of the 45th Parliament:
(a) the Government became the first majority Government in more than 50 years to lose control of the House of Representatives;
(b) the Treasurer introduced legislation containing a $107 million black hole;
(c) the Senate ran out of legislation to debate;
(d) for the first time in Federation, a Government voted to condemn itself;
(e) the former Prime Minister outflanked the current Prime Minister on his left and his right;
(f) the Prime Minister was rolled by his extreme right-wing on issue after issue;
(g) the Prime Minister condoned an Attorney-General who had misled the Parliament;
(h) the Health Department refused to endorse the Prime Minister's absolute guarantee on the cost of seeing a doctor; and
(i) the Government considered trading guns for votes; and
(3) therefore, censures the Prime Minister for 15 sitting days of unprecedented chaos from a Government in disarray.
You have got to hand it to them. They can fit a lot in in 15 days—
As the motion is based on an entirely false premise, I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no longer heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Seconded. At least Tony Abbott stood for something. This bloke stands for nothing. The government stands for nothing.
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Grayndler be no further heard.
The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
I move:
That the motion be put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister update the House on the government's plan for jobs and growth; and how are we getting on with the job of delivering our election commitments?
I thank the honourable member for his question, and thank him, too, and all my colleagues for their commitment to delivering our national economic plan. Just this week in the House, the House has passed the amendments to secure the reforms to the backpacker tax, and passed the reforms to ensure that Labor's gross mismanagement of vocational education will be brought to an end with a new scheme, saving billions of dollars.
We passed the two bills that were the triggers for the double dissolution election: the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, restoring the rule of law to the construction and building sector, and the registered organisations bill, which will ensure that the Kathy Jacksons, the Craig Thomsons and the Cesar Melhems—these people who have been ripping off their members for years and who have been ripping off some of the lowest paid workers in Australia—will have to face the same standards of accountability and transparency as company directors and be subject to the same penalties when they do the wrong thing. We have passed the legislation to deliver on our election commitment to have a plebiscite on the question of same-sex marriage and we passed it in plenty of time for the Senate to pass it to enable the vote to be held on 11 February.
In previous sitting weeks, we have defended the 60,000 volunteers of the Country Fire Authority of Victoria, whose dignity, whose independence and whose morale was being undermined and overtaken by that militant union, the UFU, which apparently has the Victorian Labor government completely in thrall. We passed the legislation through both houses to ensure that that takeover cannot be delivered by the Labor government.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will cease interjecting.
We have delivered, as we promised, tax cuts to middle-income Australians. Half a million Australians on middle incomes will not be going into the second highest tax bracket—thanks to our national economic plan.
Of course, a key part of our plan has been the delivery of open markets, free trade—that opportunity of jobs and growth for Australian exporters. So we have seen the signing of the new and considerably expanded Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, as part of that providing jobs and growth in North Queensland and $2¼ billion of investment by Singapore in Australian defence facilities at Townsville and Shoalwater Bay. So right across the board—with the omnibus savings bill delivering $11 billion of saving—we are governing, we are delivering and we are getting on with the job.
On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
On indulgence and along with the Prime Minister, I wish to acknowledge the winners of the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science last night, who are in the House, including Suzy Urbaniak, the secondary school science teacher of the year, and Gary Tilley, the primary school science teacher of the year. That is Suzy with the purple hair, and if you could bottle her energy South Australia would not have any problems with electricity supply. Also Professor Richard Shine, winner of the Prime Minister's Prize for Science; Professor Michael Aitken, winner of the Prime Minister’s Prize for Innovation; Dr Colin Hall, winner of the inaugural Prize for New Innovators; Professor Richard Payne, the winner of the Malcolm McIntosh Prize for Physical Scientist of the Year; and Associate Professor Kerrie Wilson, winner of the Frank Fenner Prize for Life Scientist of the Year.
On behalf of all of the members of the parliament: congratulations, you make us proud.
Honourable members: Hear, hear.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Does the member for Warringah claim to have been misrepresented?
Most grievously, Mr Speaker.
The member for Warringah may proceed.
In question time today, various Labor members, led by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, put it to this parliament that I had somehow connived at a deal with Senator Leyonhjelm to weaken Australia's tough, gold standard gun control laws. This is absolutely and utterly false. The bottom line here is that but for the ban imposed by the Abbott government and continued by the Turnbull government, there would be many thousands more rapid-fire shotguns in this country than there currently are.
If I could refer to an adviser's note that I received on 23 July last year—note the date: 23 July last year. Remember the claim of a deal done with Senator Leyonhjelm on 11 or 12 August. That adviser's note said:
Law enforcement agencies are concerned about a shipment of Adler 7 high powered shotguns due to arrive in August.
We had been advised that there was a very large shipment indeed of these rapid fire shotguns coming into our country. More than 7,000, we were advised, had been pre-ordered and up to 20,000 had been ordered. We were further advised that at that stage there some 10,500 rapid-fire shotguns in this country. So this order, had it gone ahead, would have potentially much more than doubled the number of these rapid-fire shotguns in this country. I should remind the House, if it needs reminding, of just how much damage these shotguns can do. An old standard shotgun, let us never forget, was used at the Lindt Cafe siege, which locked down the city of Sydney for 18 hours.
So my adviser's note continues:
The government will therefore take steps to place a temporary ban—
I repeat a temporary ban—
on the importation of these shotguns until the review has been completed and a new national firearm agreement has been reached and all jurisdictions have updated their respective regulations.
My adviser's note goes on:
The temporary ban will be achieved through a change to customs regulations.
The adviser's note goes on:
The temporary ban will keep these shotguns out of the country and off the streets until such time as they have been properly classified under the new agreement.
The adviser's note points out that but for the ban and but for a new agreement, these rapid-fire shotguns would:
… be classified at the same level as an air rifle under existing arrangements. This is not an acceptable situation for community safety and demonstrates the need for the national firearm agreement to be updated and the sense—
The very good sense indeed—
in placing a temporary ban on the importation of these new high powered shotguns.
I put it to you, Mr Speaker: how can there have been some kind of deal, or concession, or weakening for Senator Leyonhjelm on 11 or 12 August if the temporary ban was what the government had always intended, pending a permanent resolution of this by COAG?
In conclusion, let me say that we all know what members opposite are trying to achieve here. This is a smokescreen. Everything said today was a smokescreen to cover up for the fact that Labor is running a protection racket for the CFMEU. The bottom line is: you can always trust this coalition—you can only trust this coalition—to keep our country safe. (Time expired)
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I move:
That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until the end of the Spring sittings be given to the honourable Member for Blaxland, for parental leave purposes.
Question agreed to.
I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
Dysfunction in the Government.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Some days are more interesting than others in this place, but it is going to take a most interesting day to top the last hour and a half. We all heard it: that thudding noise as Malcolm Turnbull threw Tony Abbott under the bus. The current Liberal Prime Minister, defending the ministers for justice and immigration in answering the question 'Was he was satisfied about whose version was correct?' said, 'I am satisfied in my ministers for immigration and justice.' And then, as question time finished and we were still gasping at the current Prime Minister throwing the previous Prime Minister under the bus, the previous Prime Minister stood up and threw his current boss under the bus. All bets are off over there in this government! When we drafted this MPI saying that the government are not united, I never thought that they would be the first speakers in the MPI!
This Prime Minister promised stable government, but you could tell he just could not wait to rip Tony Abbott a new one. Stable government is a second-order issue—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I am not going to keep endlessly making the point that members need to refer to other members by their correct titles. It applies to every member in this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, whom I suspect I have reminded more than most.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Liberal civil war is so confusing and distracting, isn't it?
This was going to be the week. This was to be the Prime Minister's moment in the sun. You can just picture him on Sunday, all those long, 96 hours ago. He was back in the Lodge, luggage in the luggage lift, out there checking the letterbox to see if there was a postcard from Wyatt Roy—'Wish you were here.' 'No, you don't!'
Then we had the artful Arthur, Senator Sinodinos, popping his head around: 'Great news from the front, sire! We've had a win in the ACT.' 'Really?'—he heads out of the luggage lift—'What is the news? Did we win?' the Prime Minister says. 'Oh, no, no, no. It's much better than that! There's going to be some new trams to take selfies on!'
Then, of course, there is the friendly lunch with the focus group. What is on the menu? I would like to tell you but we found out in estimates this week that the Prime Minister's meals are classified. Who would have thought it was truffles with a sauce of national security?
Anyway, he is laying out the orange tie, ready for the renaissance week, the marquee week. A government was going to finally put to rest its reputation for dithering, disunity and dysfunction. He was the real Prime Minister—no more weakness, no more indecision. It was a new dawn, the third coming of Malcolm. But four days later where are we back to?
The Leader of the Opposition!
There is a split in the coalition, an insurgent member for Warringah. And what was that unfamiliar noise we heard of drumming on the backbench?
Opposition members: They're alive!
They're alive! They really do exist! Some might say I am being too hard on this government, but—
Opposition members: No!
True! But making history in a few days is not as easy as it looks. This is the first government since Menzies to lose a majority in the House, the first government to ever vote against itself—and then call upon itself to explain its failings. And then we got an insight. Those opposite agreed to call upon their failings and explain themselves, and now I realise what it meant: that is what it feels like to be in a Liberal caucus meeting every Tuesday.
Of course, then they gagged their own double dissolution triggers—as you do. It was the master stroke and they did not want the chamber to consider it. And after the longest election called in 50 years we have been given the shortest time in parliament to deal with the most important issue in the nation—according to the government.
But the good news is, I can report to the people of Australia, that the Liberal Party have not lost their sense of humour. They got the member for Fadden to ask a question about the rule of law!
Then, of course, they got so bad at communicating their message that yesterday they got the Minister for Trade up. He was talking in morse code—'R2-D2 Ciobo' kept beeping away at the box. But when there is this chaos, who do they call?
Ms Henderson interjecting—
They do not call you, Corangamite.
Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refer to members by their correct titles.
Okay: 'current member for Corangamite, temporarily'. It is only natural. When there is a problem, who do they call for? They call for the Leader of the House, or, as he prefers to be known, 'the equally senior co-convener of Defence'—so long as the Minister for Defence is not in the room and can hear him. Of course, when the parliament is falling apart, they come up with a fix! Is their fix in parliament something as simple as saying, 'Yeah, you've got be here until the end of parliament'? No. Is it something as easy as saying, 'Check what you are voting on before you vote'? Instead, it is, 'Innovative, agile electronic voting.'
Electronic voting, that is going to fix it all! I can just see how electronic voting will go with this mob: the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, gearing up to condemn herself. You can hear Siri saying, 'Don't do that!' Remember when the member for Wentworth invented the Internet, there was a little paperclip they had Microsoft Word! You can just see it saying, 'It looks like you are trying to be a minister. Do you need help?' Then there is the other place, where there is estimates. I want to give a shout out to Senator Penny Wong. I do not know how she does it. A five-hour conversation with the Attorney-General and the congeniality twins, Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Macdonald! Two men ready for the dawn of the 20th century!
Of course, satin George always brings us in with the news. In the final hours before caretaker kicked in, Senator Brandis made 37 appointments to the AAT. Those are jobs that pay a salary of up to $370,000. Let me save you doing the maths: $13.7 million, almost seven times what the Prime Minister donated to his own survival. No positions were advised, no department advice was provided and no-one has checked for the conflicts of interest. Although, the good news is: we do not know if they are qualified, we do not know if they are comprised and we do not know if they have got the job on merit, but they may well be up to being Attorney-General in this government!
Unfortunately, we see that under this government—whilst they are good at job-creating for their own donors and supporters—too many Australians, as we have learnt today, are missing out. We have seen that tens of thousands of full-time jobs are going in this country. The only thing Australians have got consoled themselves with is this mob opposite us. This week, the government did cross a serious line by talking about tampering with a 20-year bipartisan commitment to a safer Australia, dishonouring the legacy of John Howard and disregarding the warnings we tragically see from the United States so frequently. Do they really think that their anti-union, anti-worker, anti-fairness agenda is worth more than changing the rules around lever-action weapons on the streets? They are not fit to be the government.
Then they get caught in that farrago of lies. Clearly, the former Prime Minister has educated us today and, whilst he was having a go at the opposition, we know his real target was the Prime Minister. He said there were no deals done, yet what we see clearly is the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in written correspondence, offering Senator Leyonhjelm—in return for their vote on other matters—changes to the rules around these lever-action shotguns. When the Prime Minister has a choice between—
Mr Keenan interjecting—
I think you have said enough for today, Minister for Justice! You saw the Prime Minister: he had a choice to backup the member for Warringah, but the member for Wentworth is so consumed by his dislike and his disregard for the member for Warringah that he is happy to buttress these incompetents in their current jobs when they have been caught out dealing votes for guns. Australians do not want this horsetrading; they do not want this horsetrading on things as fundamental as their gun laws. Can we find out from the government what they actually think about the gun laws and where they should be? Any number of times this week we have invited our Prime Minister to inform us and to tell us what he is doing in conjunction with the Australian Federal Police advice. These are the questions which those opposite must answer.
But the real lesson we have learnt this week is that this government and this Prime Minister are so weak, so pathetic and so desperate that any group of bullies can tweak the Prime Minister's tail and any group insurgents can stand him up. The one thing we have learnt about the member for Wentworth in just over a year of his stewardship of this nation is that he will sell out his principles, he will sell out his previous positions and he will do anything to keep his job. Tragically, this nation may well have another two years of this weak leadership. But we promise the people of Australia that we will call out the weakness, the lack of conscience and the mercenary nature of doing deals, votes for guns and the like. We will never stops standing up to a weak, rotten government.
I rise to speak against the motion and note—
The MPI.
The MPI, I should say. Thank you, Shadow Treasurer. I note that for 23 years in Western Sydney, I was in hotels across Western Sydney and dealt with guns, dealt with bikies and dealt with drugs.
Opposition members interjecting—
Laugh, laugh, those opposite! It is not fun. A 21 years of age, I kicked in my first toilet door to pull a 21-year-old young bloke with a needle in his arm out and attempted to revive him. I failed. I have seen the scourge of drugs in real life on the front lines. It was one of the key motivations when, five years ago, I joined the Liberal Party. In the last term of that Labor government, they used the AFP as something they could continually cut funding and resources from. You had that crazy situation.
The Leader of the Opposition runs out of the chamber! The irony of this week is that the Leader of the Opposition is using guns to hide behind. For six years, he had every chance to stand up. The member for Blaxland was the minister responsible. I felt sorry for him, because in Regents Park, where my family owned the Regents Park Hotel, was the biggest ever stash of methamphetamines. It was in his electorate whilst he was the minister. Why? Because under them, the resources cut to the AFP were at record levels.
They were under 10 per cent of containers coming to this country—which contained all of our mail, by the way—that were checked. You heard the Prime Minister stand up in this place earlier in the week and talk about the member for Cook and the 220 Glocks that were found in a post-office box in his electorate. The safest way that organised criminals had under the Labor Party to get guns into this country was the genius idea of mailing the guns to themselves. The Glocks got through. Those opposite go quiet now. The irony—dysfunction, thy name is Labor—of them putting the word dysfunction in this MPI. For six years, there was pink batts, school halls, cash for clunkers, the carbon tax and the mining tax, which is my personal favourite. It did not raise a cent, but locked in $16 billion in expenditure. They are all politics and no substance.
The irony is that the comedian, the Leader of the Opposition, stands up here for 10 minutes and keeps his backbench entertained. The people of Australia are over this crap. They are over it. Those opposite think all this resonates here in the beltway, but I have news for them: the people want to feel safe. The Minister for Justice, since coming to the role in 2013, along with this government, have them feeling safer than ever. When the games were going on last week, I waited in my seat at question time for the Manager of Opposition Business to ask one question of the minister about a 16-year-old boy and a colleague who were pulled up minutes away from an act of terror in his own electorate—but not one question. You are all politics on that side and no substance. We are getting on with government.
If all this is in government it is one thing, but now we are seeing it in opposition. I do not mind them trying to take the focus off what is really going on—the internal power struggles of the Labor Party—but it is going on this week again. You put Kim Carr in, you take Kim Carr out; you put Kim Carr in—you are going to need some help to do the next part—and you shake him all about. When you do that, we find that a split in the Left emerges. Does anyone know who Gavin Marshall is? I have to read his name because I don't know who he is. You could not pick him in a line-up. Who is he? Instead of where's Wally, we should have where's Gavin Marshall. But he found his voice this week, and poor old Gilesy, Andrew Giles, and Catherine King, they are gone.
I ask the assistant minister to refer to members by their correct title.
I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. Andrew Giles and Catherine King are gone, apparently. I do not know what faction the member for Batman is in, but maybe Gavin Marshall can find your house. Maybe he can.
The member for Lalor on a point of order.
Could the member please refer to other members by their appropriate names.
I remind the assistant minister to refer to members in this House and the other one by their correct title.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Senator Marshall has made that much of an impact that I am guessing he is from Victoria. Then we have the Kimberley Kitching debacle. One frontbencher has said, 'It's crazy to put her in.' Albo would not endorse her—
Mr Deputy Speaker—
Sorry, the member for Grayndler would not endorse her.
A point of order from the member for Moreton.
Mr Deputy Speaker, not one minute ago you directed the minister to use correct titles—
The assistant minister has corrected himself.
The member for Grayndler would not endorse her. Keep distracting, but these are the underlying truths sitting inside the factional wars of the Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition stands up here and plays comedian for 10 minutes when at all times he is managing his own backbench to ensure his own job. The most frustrating part is that this is what cuts through outside this place, this is what you get in the front lines of Western Sydney: you get to talk about economic growth of 3.3 per cent—the highest rate since the GFC, with 180,000 jobs created in the last 12 months and 60 per cent of them for women. We have an economic plan which the Prime Minister keeps standing up and talking about. There are the free trade agreements. Reid has a strong local Chinese community, and we have young Chinese Australians who are opening up businesses or partnering with local businesses in Reid and employing other Australians as they start to export to China. That is where the 180,000 jobs created are coming from—the economic plan. And $195 billion will be spent on defence over the next 10 years, with 54 new naval vessels. In the six years of the previous government, there was not one. My personal favourite—I am biased because I am one of the ministers responsible—is the National Innovation and Science Agenda. We heard Minister Hunt today congratulate the prize winners from last night. There is a $200 million CSIRO fund to work with SMEs—my passion—to partner with them and to commercialise science, to take it to market; to take the concepts from institutions inside this country and commercialise them. Why? To create the growth that creates jobs. The $500 million Medical Translation Fund will work in one of our six growth centres, medical research. We are world leaders in that, but historically we have seen an exodus of our brains trust, our into intellectual property, offshore post-development. No more.
Dr Freelander interjecting—
I remind the member for Macarthur that he is out of this place. He is warned and if he interjects once more he will remove himself under 94(a)
We have heard the Prime Minister talk about the last week, but in the last month there have been $11 billion worth of budget savings. There have been tax cuts for 500,000 Australians, which stops them moving into the top tax bracket. We have been fixing Labor's VET FEE-HELP mess, there is an enhanced free trade agreement with Singapore and we are supporting the CFA volunteers against the Victorian government and their union mates. Wherever you look in this country and you see a Labor government, you will see up their back the hand of their local union. The unions are the puppeteers of the puppets who sit opposite. If you want dysfunction, dysfunction thy name is Labor. We are getting on with the business of government. You will notice there has not been one laugh in my ten minutes, because I am not interested in spin—I am interested in substance. I am interested in delivering not only for the people of Reid but for the people of Western Sydney.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The plan, member for Parramatta, has delivered 180,000 jobs in 12 months—many of them in your backyard.
Ms Owens interjecting—
Unemployment has gone up—5.6 per cent. Thank you for reminding me. I did not remember that. This MPI is an absolute joke.
It is extraordinary to have the previous member boasting about unemployment rates that have actually risen and talking about factional politics at a time when the New South Wales Right, as represented by the member for Warringah, the former Prime Minister, is attacking the New South Wales Left, as represented by the current Prime Minister—not sure how much longer he will be there—the member for Wentworth. There is no clearer example of the division and dysfunction at the heart of this government than the former Prime Minister's stalking of the current Prime Minister. He pops up week after week: 'Here I am! Here I am! Here I am!' And here he is now on gun control. What an extraordinary reversal we see. As The Sydney Morning Herald pointed out today there is 'Townie Tony', who actually wants to crack down on guns, and 'Machine Gun Malcolm', who wants to make it easier to get these lever-action shotguns.
The member for Sydney—
Mr Deputy Speaker, that was a quote from The Sydney Morning Herald. I am quoting the newspaper. We have division and dysfunction at the heart of this government with a guns for votes scandal.
This comes on top of the member for Warringah stalking the member for Wentworth, the current Prime Minister, on marriage equality. We all know that the Prime Minister actually thinks there should be a free vote in the parliament—he said it before; he said it a year ago—but he is not allowed to do it because the member for Warringah is creeping up behind him day after day.
We know that the member for Wentworth was a very effective advocate for the need to do something about climate change. Whatever happened to the member for Wentworth who was an effective advocate for doing something on climate change? He has gone.
In foreign affairs, we have the member for Warringah popping up not just in Australia but overseas talking about what Europe should be doing, what the United States should be doing and what Australia should be doing. The Prime Minister is unable to lead his country's foreign affairs debate because the member for Warringah is stalking him the whole way.
This government is extraordinary. There were 37 people appointed before the last election, at the last minute, to $370,000 a year jobs. There was not a peep from the Prime Minister. There were big business tax cuts of $50 billion. The benefits mostly flow overseas. Julie Bishop, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, spent $200,000 to send 23 public servants to Paris to—guess what?—talk about cost savings! Incredible, isn't it? There were $500-a-night hotel rooms, so it cost $1,500 for three nights for each of the 23. There were $7, 600 airfares for each of the 23 public servants. It cost $1,500 per person for meals. What a terrific cost-saving junket that is!
I want to finish on how this dysfunction shows itself in schools policy. In New South Wales we have a Liberal Premier and a Nationals education minister who are doing more for Australian children in schools than anybody in this federal government is prepared to do. They are standing up to the federal government and saying: 'We signed a six-year deal. We want the six-year deal honoured. We're not content to receive just a third of the funding that you promised to New South Wales school children and neither are the parents, teachers, principals, school staff and children in New South Wales.'
And what else have we heard today? We have heard that the former Minister for Education authorised an advertising campaign which legal advice to his department said may have breached the law. In fact, they told him: 'It could be found to have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010'. That is $15 million worth of government advertising that may have misled consumers. What did it say? It said what they were after was a fifty-fifty split on university costs—where the student paid 50 per cent and the government paid 50 per cent. The department knew that what they were in fact asking was that students pay something much closer to 60 per cent, not 50 per cent; they were talking about a government contribution of 39½ per cent. It is an extremely dysfunctional government that can deliver— (Time expired)
I welcome this opportunity to speak on and oppose this matter of public importance. I wonder how Hansard will record the sound of the slowly and sadly deflating balloon that we heard earlier when the Leader of the Opposition got up to speak. It is a reflection of the sadness and futility of the opposition, which is clearly being felt by those opposite, that even the subject matter they choose for MPIs seems somewhat tepid and uninspired. Of course, it should not surprise us that this opposition, which is in opposition because it had so few plans for government, should now be running out of ideas and things to say when we are only about 100 days into this parliament. We should thank our lucky stars that this parliament is not sitting tomorrow or next week because by then the opposition would probably be left nominating topics that they find in gossip magazines or in the leftover newspapers in the staff cafe!
Yet I do think it is appropriate that we remind ourselves every month or so about the utter dysfunction and chaos that was in full swing five years ago when Labor was last in office—by that stage, incidentally, in a coalition government with the Greens. It is said that history repeats itself, and never has that been more true than in the minds of the opposition. So shell-shocked are they from the six years of dysfunction, bitter divisions and policy paralysis that characterised their years in government they are still focused on it today. Not only did we have the farce of the revolving door of leadership in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd days, but we had that litany of policy failures—pink batts, the rorted school halls program and six years of record debt and deficits.
By comparison, this government has a long list of achievements. I am only a relatively new member in this place, but in the 15 sitting days that I have sat in this parliament since I was elected we have given tax cuts to middle-income earners; we have tightened our counterterrorism laws; we have signed a new free trade agreement with Singapore; we have fixed large and growing rorts in so many of the flawed schemes that previous Labor governments implemented, including VET FEE-HELP and child care; we have successfully protected those vulnerable volunteers around Australia in organisations like the CFA from the institutional predation of the union movement; we have just passed in this House the ABCC bill and the registered organisations bill, which will help to restore the rule of law in such a big and critical sector of our economy—and they will do more than those opposite ever did before to address housing affordability in our inner city areas.
But, possibly most importantly of all, in the interests of stability, certainty and economic confidence, this government has achieved something incredibly important yet quite simple: this government has become the first government in Australia in over 12 years to be re-elected in its own right. You cannot understate the damage that all of that instability and dysfunction of those terrible Labor-Greens-Labor years of government did to the economy, which we are now working so hard to undo. What I have seen and experienced so far in my short number of days in this House is a government that has won every substantive vote in this House—not just by one vote but usually by two to 12, depending on how the crossbench votes.
I would also like to say something about the meaningless and silly stunts attempted by those in opposition since the election. I did not get very involved in student union politics when I was at university, but I think I recognise student union politics when I see it. I do not know how Hansard will record the sound of that slowly and sadly deflating balloon that we are hearing over there as they recognise the impotence of being in opposition. It is sad; it is futile—and it mocks their claims to be a constructive partner in government.
Order! Before I call the member for Lalor, there is a general warning on behaviour. There will be no more warnings. The next person that unruly will be removed under 94(a).
I am really pleased to stand and follow the member for Brisbane—the member for 'silly talks', as his new nickname has him going by. I would like to quote George Costanza at this time: 'Would it kill you not to be funny? Please! Would it kill you not to be funny?' We are here on a matter of public importance—
The member for Deakin on a point of order.
Thanks, Deputy Speaker. The member for Lalor has used an unparliamentary term in relation to my colleague. Can you ask her to withdraw, please.
I was listening to the member for Lalor. I do not believe it was unparliamentary. It may be inappropriate but not under parliamentary. I ask the member for Lalor to keep that in mind.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker; thank you very much. I rise to speak on a matter of public importance today because what we have witnessed today is absolute history. Never have we seen two prime ministers—the former Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister—go toe-to-toe on the floor of the House on the same side!
A government member interjecting—
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I think the member opposite is ignoring your ruling. I am pretty sure I heard you say that the next member who interjects will get chucked out under 94(a).
I realise the member might be new. It is also unconventional to call a point of order when one of your members is speaking. I call the member for Lalor.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a day of firsts. It is a day of firsts, and the member for Lyons might have to have a meeting in my office! But, this is serious. It is a very serious day. I think the previous member said something about the hissing of a balloon. What I heard was the thunk of a bus—and then, when given an opportunity to recant, he backed the bus back over him again! He backed it back over him again. Those opposite are in complete disarray.
Now we could stand here all day I think and not use the same material. We could start with: 'I have got a good idea. Let's have an eight-week election campaign in the middle of winter.' That was a good one from this government, wasn't it? That was gold. The Australian public loved it too. That is why they returned them with a smaller majority. The numbers over here increased; the numbers over there decreased. But, of course, the Prime Minister suggested that he had a working majority—and then those opposite set about proving him wrong! That is what they have been doing since he became the Prime Minister. If we could have whipped that out ourselves, but we did not need to.
The Minister for Justice was off—'Boarding call! Boarding call!' There he was in the lounge ready to leave, while the rest of us were still here at work. Not only are they dysfunctional; they are workshy. They are absolutely workshy. This mob have no intention of doing any work. They want to talk about employment rates and unemployment rates. They want to talk about workers. They need to show up and do some work in this place. We have had 100 days since the election—it is over 100 now—and we have sat for 15 days in this place. We have been asked for 15 days to show up here and represent the electors who had to vote for us, to bring us back to this place to represent them here.
We could go on all day. We will try the next one. What was next? The census. Now that went well, didn't it? Then today we find in Senate estimates that the census fail cost $30 million, because those opposite could not organise themselves into portfolios and take responsibility for the jobs they were given—but we can understand that now. It is now more than 100 days since the census failed. Also, we still do not know who the senior minister is for Defence. But I can say this: I woke up this morning to headlines that said the killing season was coming. I did not realise it would be here so quickly. I really did not realise that we would be moving into the killing season. I want to reference my good mate Senator Dastyari. He gave a speech in which he said that 'winter is coming'. Remember: winter is coming. Well, the sun is shining outside and those opposite are nearly finished.
I might just improve the tone of the debate.
Just by standing up!
Just by standing up I have achieved it. Well, well, well, I cannot believe that the Leader of the Opposition has put forward this matter of public importance. Here is a man who played a key role in the most dysfunctional, divided and chaotic government in Australian history—the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. The opposition leader is attributed with the ascension of Julia Gillard as Prime Minister, and, only three years later, he knifed her to replace her with her predecessor, whom he first toppled in 2010, Kevin Rudd. All this talk of gun laws is, as we know on this side, just another smokescreen to avoid us focusing on bad union behaviour. So I think the opposition leader and those opposite know a lot about dysfunction.
Today I am very pleased to be able to speak about the Turnbull government's growing record, which sets new standards for diligent and sensible economic management.
Opposition members interjecting—
We have achieved a lot lately. Let me talk about it. Our economic record in testing global economic circumstances remains a point of pride, not just for me but for all the members on this side of the House. Our economic growth has strengthened by 3.3 per cent, which means Australia now has the fastest growing economy of the G7 nations. For those opposite who do not appreciate the significance of what I have just said—because I know that sometimes you have trouble understanding basic foreign affairs—this means we are growing our economy at a faster rate than the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and four other developed Western economies. This does not happen by accident or if you are dysfunctional, as alleged by the opposition leader. We are outperforming comparable economies.
We are working hard to ensure Australia's economic future is a safe and secure one—the chamber is nice and quiet; that is the way we like it—by legislating some of the world's toughest measures relating to multinational tax avoidance legislation, which Labor failed to introduce during their time in government. They had plenty of opportunity to legislate such measures but failed to do so. Despite the blustering of those opposite about multinationals avoiding paying their fair share of the tax burden, they actually voted against that piece of legislation in this House. For those who have forgotten, the Leader of the Opposition's first tax policy as opposition leader was—what do you think it might have been?—a multinational tax avoidance policy. Apparently, he knew something about it and was quite interested in bringing that into play; but, unfortunately, he could not get it over the line with his colleagues sitting opposite. Our multinational tax avoidance policy was a piece of legislation so clearly beneficial for this country that, unbelievably, even the Greens could see it made sense and voted accordingly. Labor, in the interim, sat on their hands and did nothing, just like they did in their six years of running the country. The Turnbull government, as we know on this side, is pro-business and pro-growth. We are working hard on this side to grow the country and to allow the next generation and the generation after that to inherit this country in a much better shape than how we found it back in 2013. I am very proud—
Mr Hawke interjecting—
as the assistant minister at the table said—that we have created some 180,000 jobs over the past year, with 60 per cent of those jobs going to women and a large portion of those going to women in my electorate of Durack. We have also signed export agreements, as we have heard previously, with China, Japan, South Korea and we have a new expanded free trade agreement with Singapore. This is great news for the electorate of Durack, with many of my local businesses able to take advantage of these free trade agreements.
Those opposite might not care about regional and remote Australia, but this side of this House does—let me tell you—and we are very proud of our record in regional Australia, promoting growth through our innovation economy and through significant investment in roads and also in mobile telecommunications, especially in my electorate of Durack, where we have announced 45 new towers. We have a fair dinkum desire to develop Northern Australia, which I am particularly proud of. My electorate of Durack has been able to participate in a $600 million road fund and will benefit from the $100 million beef roads package. I see no dysfunction on this side of the House, but I see plenty on that side of the House.
I am very pleased to speak to the subject of this MPI, because this is a government whose Prime Minister cannot control his party—a Prime Minister who is unable to manage this parliament and a government whose ministers cannot decide who is in control. Let's cast our minds back to some 12 months ago. At that moment in time, it appeared that the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, as he first lunged for the crown, was at the height of his powers. At that moment in time, many Australians imagined that they were getting a Prime Minister who was a conviction politician. They imagined that they were getting a Prime Minister who was going to reposition the Liberal Party on key issues like climate change and marriage equality. Hope started to flutter in the hearts of progressives around Australia. Well, 12 months later, those dreams have been shattered as, time and again, we have seen this government fail.
We first saw the new Prime Minister come into office and immediately kowtow to the far Right of his party. He made no attempt to lead the direction of his government; he has instead surrendered. He has surrendered to the right wing of his party in exchange for the throne he sits on—and you can see how uncomfortable that is. You see a Prime Minister, who, time and time again, has used vaulting language to describe the most pitiful proposals. Do we remember the greatest reform in the history of our Federation? Do we remember the idea that states would start to engage in taxation? As one wag said at the time: 'This is an idea that has lasted for less time than the average hangover.' Do we remember the vacuous slogans that he promised to get rid of? And then, of course, he launched 'jobs and growth'. Do we remember the GST? Do we remember the great reform that he was going to launch this country into? It was a tax reform program that came out at Christmas and died an ignoble death.
This is a government which in fact has had nothing to offer the Australian people—not convictions, not reform. But it has offered us entertainment. It has offered us the entertainment of a government that cannot control the parliament. It has offered us the entertainment of a government that seeks to condemn itself. Now we see before us the lively debates in question time between the Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister. We now see their divisions in open display, and they are delightful. A group of persons who came to this place saying that there was a budget emergency have made the debt so very worse. A group of people who came to this place saying that getting rid of a first-term Prime Minister was a disgrace have done that themselves. There is nothing left that makes you any different from a bunch of clowns roaming the body politic.
An eight-week election campaign was how they were going to bring themselves out of the morass they found themselves in. Let me give a big shout-out at this moment to the Greens for enabling that double dissolution election. What a triumph it was for you—a campaign where you offered the Australian people neither policy nor hope, where every single slogan that had brought you to government in 2013 had already been turned to dust—a government that now stands in this place and in this debate bereft of credibility. All the member for Wentworth can now do is survive week to week. Is it any wonder that this is a government that wants the parliament to meet as little as possible? Is it any wonder that this is a Prime Minister who has no legislation for this parliament to consider? There is no reform agenda and there is no reason this Prime Minister would want this parliament to meet, because of course what happens when parliament meets? Liberal Party MPs get to talk to one another, and that is ripe with danger.
We saw a few moments ago the Liberal Party backbench apparently rise from their tomb. We on this side had thought they had died a death many years ago, but suddenly today you were enlivened because you heard Tony Abbott speak and your little right-wing hearts burst with excitement! And suddenly, instead of lying there like zombies, you rose up and slammed your tables because you found in your ranks a man who in fact does have some fight in him. He may even believe in something. What a striking contrast to your Prime Minister! And so you came to life, and we can see the flags flying over there as you remember those glory days when you had a Prime Minister who believed in something. The next few months are going to be quite a remarkable sight as we watch this play out in your ranks. But there are a few things we know for sure: no matter how that debate ends you will not believe in anything and you will not accomplish anything. (Time expired)
I am very disappointed to interrupt the member for Batman's audition for a re-entry to the frontbench. I am not sure how well it went, but good luck, member for Batman.
What an extraordinary MPI we have seen here today. I thought all my Christmases had come at once when I saw 'Dysfunction in the government'. I thought, 'Dysfunction. Hold on, I'm from Victoria. Has anyone seen Senator Marshall's comments this week, speaking of dysfunction?' I think we should go through it. I so wish the member for Scullin were here, but I suspect the member for Scullin is somewhere stacking branches or maybe preparing for a membership drive, given that we have a few issues in the Victorian division of the Labor Party. At a meeting earlier this week, we are told—it is reported, and this is what Senator Marshall has reported—there was a lot of unhappiness with the member for Scullin. In the words of Senator Marshall on the record—these are not comments in the background; these are on-the-record comments—the member for Scullin 'was a very bad fit for Scullin as the member and there is a mood for change in the branch. I've been talking to lots of people in Scullin.' There you have it: Senator Marshall openly saying in the media that he is stacking the branches against the member for Scullin.
I happen to quite like the member for Scullin, but a dirt sheet that went out on the member for Scullin did strike a chord with me. A dirt sheet that I suspect Senator Marshall put around to his 950 branch members did strike a chord. This dirt sheet said as follows, and this is a branch member in Scullin commenting on the member for Scullin:
When my mates' jobs are going overseas and I can't get full time hours after being laid off ... I don't want to hear he—
the member for Scullin—
cried in Parliament about gay marriage—I want him to cry and fight for us, our jobs and our ability to put food on the table ...
I suspect Senator Marshall is in Scullin just needling, just working the branches. Again, I like the member for Scullin, but I really do enjoy seeing Senator Marshall stirring it up. We are seeing open warfare in the Labor Party.
I feel very sorry for the Leader of the Opposition because he is essentially a right-wing member of the Labor Party trying to keep an extreme left-wing rump of his party under control. Now we have the Victorian Left, which has broken away from the national Left to the point where Albo—the member for Grayndler, sorry—has no idea who Kimberley Kitching is. Everybody in the trade union royal commission knows who Kimberley Kitching is, and I can tell members opposite that there will be a lot coming. I cannot wait for Ms Kitching to arrive here in parliament. We are going to have a lot of fun with that. If members of the Left had any guts whatsoever, they would put a stop to it. Where is the great Left of the Labor Party to stop this absolutely disgraceful captain's pick? This is somebody who the trade union royal commission decided deserves charges to be placed against her.
Talking about dysfunction, what other dysfunction is there? We have more dysfunction between the Left and the Right of the Labor Party: Senator Wong slapping down the shadow minister for defence with his outrageous comments in relation to the South China Sea. Senator Wong confirmed on a number of occasions, apparently, that Labor's policy is no different to ours in relation to the South China Sea. So why hasn't the Leader of the Opposition slapped down the member for Corio, as he should, for that disgraceful and lazy comment that he made? Apparently this parliament has no say over what our ADF do—the ADF personnel decide that. I am with Senator Wong on this—it is one of the very few issues that I would be with Senator Wong on—in slapping down the shadow minister for defence. But where is the Leader of the Opposition in this? The Leader of the Opposition cannot even assert a basic fact like that for fear of going against his factional ally in Victoria, because his party is crumbling underneath him. It is only a matter of time when Senator Marshall against the member for Scullin expands throughout the party, and I look forward to witnessing that.
I think the previous speaker, the member for Deakin, really highlighted how incompetent this government is. He did not defend them at all. Absolutely nothing—not one defence. There is nothing he can say to defend his government. It was the same with previous speakers—they could not at all defend their government. What we have here is a government that is completely dysfunctional. They have no unity at all. It is a government at war with itself and in total chaos. This is a government that, for the first time since federation, voted to condemn itself. That is what they did—they are so incompetent. They are in this position because the Prime Minister is so weak that he cannot stand up to anybody—
Mr Deputy Speaker, do you want to invite the member to table her speech?
Member for Deakin, that is not a point of order.
He never can defend this government. It is unbelievable. They are in this position because the Prime Minister is so weak and unable to stand up to anybody in his party. It is that chaotic. He is so weak. They are not actually doing the job that they were voted in for, to govern the country. That is what you are voted in for. They did not defend any of that; they did not defend any policies before; they just could not do it. And they cannot do it because there are so many divisions within their party.
We have a Prime Minister unable to make any decisions because he is so beholden to those right-wing extremists in both the Liberal Party and the National Party. The National Party thinks this is great. They think it is Christmas. They think it is great that they are on telly all the time demanding what government policy might be. They think it is wonderful. Unfortunately, the rest of the country is pretty worried about this, because they know how extremist their views are. Perhaps even worse, we know the effects of the harsh cuts that the National Party will continue to pursue in health, education and community infrastructure. We know what they will do. Make no mistake about it, in regional areas we blame the Nationals for all the extreme cuts that we have seen in country areas. We know what they are like. So it surely is a measure of the Prime Minister's character that all we see is dithering, weakness, unwillingness and his inability to stand up to those in his party.
There are so many serious divisions in the government as well. Let's have a look at the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah—parading around on 7.30 last night acting like he is like the Prime Minister in exile. Every time he is on telly, or here, that is all he does. Ever since he was dumped as Prime Minister he has been out there backgrounding, undermining, waiting to come back.
The member will refer to other members by their correct titles, which I understand she has been warned about already. I am making it very clear that the member will refer to members by their correct titles. I sat the Leader of the Opposition down on this very point.
In recent days we have seen the issue of gun safety regulation really highlight the divisions in the government—their dysfunction and indeed their dishonesty. This is an issue I feel very strongly about, particularly as a former police officer. I am very proud that we have very strong gun laws in this country. We should not be changing that at all. That is why the debate we have seen over the last few days is a disgrace when it comes to this government. We have seen a lot of coverage about the classification of the Adler shotgun. The fact that both the current Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, have been prepared to trade votes for guns is very, very concerning. We saw today in question time the Prime Minister openly contradict the former Prime Minister's claims about the votes for guns scandal, and indeed, as the opposition leader said, we saw him really throw him under a bus. We should all be very, very worried that the Prime Minister has been caught out trying to do this deal. It is a real concern. Also, these changes that we have had the government talking about are really being pushed along by our friends in the National Party. Every day one of them comes out spruiking these changes, wanting this to happen.
Of course, we know that there is a COAG meeting on tomorrow and we are all waiting very eagerly to see exactly what the government does, because it really is an absurd situation that they are in. We would really like to know where the Prime Minister stands, because we really see him all over the shop, so weak and dithering on so many issues. We have seen him change his position on super; we have seen him refuse to take effective action on climate change or marriage equality; and now, possibly, gun laws. We just see him walking away from so many different positions all the time, and it really does reflect his weakness.
So we have all this dysfunction happening, but while this dysfunction is happening the government has managed to continue with their very harsh and cruel cuts to the Australian people, particularly their cuts to services, and especially those shameful cuts to services to people in regional areas, which, as I said, we blame the National Party for. The fact is that we have a government that is completely dysfunctional, a government that has no unity at all; a government that is at war with itself over so many issues, which they should be constantly condemned for. None of their speakers have been able to defend the government because they cannot defend it. (Time expired)
It is a great opportunity that I have been given to talk about this motion, which somehow seems to try to portray that this government is in some sort of chaos. If you observe what has gone on here in our short time, you will see that an amazing situation was arrived at with the superannuation reforms. There were some concerns at the initial announcement. What we saw behind the scenes was a range of meetings between our financial leaders—the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance—with a whole range of backbenchers who were representing their communities. We landed on a spot that everybody can live with. There are still significant savings for the budget and that is where we are now moving to. We have moved to a situation where we have a Prime Minister who is fully committed to fixing up the budget in a real and meaningful way. We understand that our political opponents, Labor, stand for more debt. They stand for increased taxes, and there is no way known that they are going to have the capacity within themselves to make any hard decisions for the betterment of this country and the future of this country.
Recently we have looked at a $195 billion investment in the defence system. We know that for six years Labor spent zero dollars on these big-ticket items that needed to be invested in. Previously, in another life, I was the minister for veterans affairs in the Victorian government and had many of the senior Army, Air Force and Navy personnel talking to me about the lack of investment by the Labor Party, at that stage in government in Australia. Again we find that the coalition, on this side of the House, sees that we have to invest in the long-term strategic defence of Australia.
We also understand that, in regional Victoria, mobile communications blackspots are an incredibly important issue. We stand by our record, having invested in over 490 mobile phone towers right around Australia. When we compare that to our political opponents in Labor, over six years when they were in control of the country they did not invest in one mobile phone tower. They turn their back on regional Victoria and turn their back on some of the most important issues such as communications. Their deplorable effort when they attempted to roll the National Broadband Network out across Australia was absolutely pathetic, and yet here we are now, rolling out the NBN—still with some challenges, yes, but we are certainly connecting up more and more of Australia than Labor could ever have hoped for.
We have passed legislation on personal income tax and company tax. This has been proven by the economists as the way to grow our country. Again, it is a tough decision to go down this path, to ensure that we create the opportunity where we can grow further jobs and the economy, but certainly it is one of the tough decisions that have been made by a cohesive government.
We have also seen the Prime Minister come to the aid and the defence of Victoria's Country Fire Authority. What an amazing act that was. We have a Premier in Victoria who, for some reason, is hell-bent on destroying that volunteer base. Quite unbelievably, he does not seem to be able to go left or right on this one; he is just stuck in the headlights. He has done whatever he could do to undermine the wealth of knowledge and the command of the CFA and its volunteers so that he can be beholden to the United Firefighters Union and those unionists—who obviously have photos, I might say. They have something over Daniel Andrews. We are not quite sure what it is. However, he has sacked ministers, he has sacked the board and he has sacked the chief fire officer. He has sacked nearly everybody who has previously had a role in the CFA—and if he could sack the volunteers he would, except he does not have that sort of control over them. It has been an enormous mess, and now legislation has been passed by the Prime Minister that will see those volunteers given protection from any legislation passed in the future that will impact them.
The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I present the report from the Publications Committee. Copies of the report are being placed on the table. I ask leave of the House to move that the report be agreed to.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the report be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I am going to start with a quote from John F. Kennedy. He said:
In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience – the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men – each man must decide for himself the course he will follow.
John F. Kennedy knew a little bit about courage, obviously, having fought in World War II. He made many brave decisions as President in dealing with the unrest in the civil rights movement. Political courage is something a little bit different. We do get to see a little bit of real courage in this place. Sadly, it is often when we stand to note the passing of Australian soldiers. We have done that too many times in my time here. Or there is the courage of police officers who go undercover. I am wearing a Daniel Morcombe badge. I know that would be incredible courage. But political courage is something that we do not see a lot of here in Australia.
When John Howard introduced gun control laws in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre, he showed political courage. He had only been Prime Minister for six weeks. He challenged his coalition partners, the Nationals, to bring in those laws. I know it took a lot of coverage. Even more courageous was the Queensland Premier at the time, Rob Borbidge—also not from my side of politics. Queensland had a National Party-dominated coalition government at the time. Premier Borbidge knew that backing gun control laws was going to be a very difficult thing for him to do politically in Queensland, but it was the right thing to do, and Rob Borbidge did not waiver. Rob's political courage probably cost him the next election in Queensland, but he has undoubtedly saved many Australian lives by supporting Prime Minister John Howard's gun control policy. Sadly, this week we have seen an unpicking of that incredibly brave legislation that has saved lives because of horse trading where we have guns for votes going on. I would ask the Prime Minister to seriously consider what he would be unpicking.
Over my time in this place there have been examples in this parliament of people showing political courage—what we would call 'the courage of their convictions'. In August 2006, we saw the member for McMillan, Russell Broadbent, cross the floor to vote against the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill. That took a bit of courage. He did the same thing again in the remaining stages of the migration amendment. On 13 February, my first day in parliament, when the parliament made an apology to the stolen generation—a motion of apology to Australia's Indigenous people by the Prime Minister of the day, Kevin Rudd—the member for Dickson had the courage not to support that motion. I totally disagreed with him, but at least he had the courage to say to his colleagues, 'I do not support what you are doing.' He said that to his leader at the time, Brendan Nelson—'I do not support what you are doing.' So he showed some courage, I guess.
I also acknowledge the courage of member for Gippsland, Darren Chester, when two Liberal and two National members voted against the second reading stage of the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill, which was, basically, the alcopops legislation. I am not sure if the member for Gippsland has been consistent in voting against this budget measure ever since, but he did when he came in as a new member. I do acknowledge that.
There are a few other examples that I could give. The member for Wentworth voted with the Labor government in the second reading stage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2010. He went against where his party sat because he believed in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. He definitely showed that he had some courage when it came to something that he believed strongly in. In 2011, the member for Dawson voted in favour of a Bob Katter amendment to the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill. He went against his party. He showed a little bit of political courage. Then on 27 November, 2012, the member for McMillan voted against the second reading of the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill, showing consistency in his position because he believed in it.
In 2013, the member for Bennelong, John Alexander, voted against the higher education support amendment. But there was some suggestion that that actually might have been a stuff-up on his part rather than a conviction position. Likewise, the former member for Banks, Nickolas Varvaris, actually voted with the opposition on a matter, but I think that was more of a stuff-up. I think the National Party member for Flynn, when he was in a conversation with Clive Palmer, actually voted against his party. But, again, I do not think it was a moment of conviction; that was more of a stuff-up.
I wanted to point out that political courage because it is not a commodity that you see very often in this place, even in the Liberal Party, where, supposedly, every single vote is an individual decision, unless you are a member of the cabinet. Every single vote of the National Party is an individual decision. There will be debates in the party room, but you are allowed to vote wherever you want. In the Labor Party, we have a different set of rules—a collective set of rules—that say, unless it is a matter of conscience, you will vote with the collective.
What have we seen in this parliament for the last 15 days of sitting? We saw a government lose control of the 45th parliament. It was unbelievable. We saw a Treasurer introduce legislation that contained a $107 million black hole. We saw a Senate that run out of legislation to debate. Then we saw that incredible event, for the first time since Federation, where we had a government vote against itself in the House of Representatives—on a motion that voted in favour of seeking the government to explain why it had failed to explain tax loopholes and increasing tax transparency. So we have a situation where we have a Prime Minister who is not leading his government. It is the job that he is paid to do; it is the job that he was elected to do—admittedly, with a small minority. And, obviously, he has no authority to govern Tasmania because all of his Tasmanian backbenchers were rejected.
Debate interrupted.
This statement that I have here makes a statement. It is the EIS for Sydney's biggest project, Badgerys Creek Airport—and look at it. It is designed to make you think it is very comprehensive, right? Wrong. Here is one critical flaw in this EIS, showing you what it is all about.
In 2000, the Blue Mountains was put on the World Heritage List by UNESCO, a great win for Western Sydney and the nation. In announcing the decision, UNESCO specifically referred to the fact that plans for a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek, adjacent to the Greater Blue Mountains Area, had been abandoned. This EIS largely quotes that UNESCO decision, except for the fact that UNESCO referred to the shelving of the airport! Amazing. One of the biggest reasons why the Blue Mountains was heritage listed—no airport—is not mentioned by this EIS. Like so much support for this airport, the EIS is all show, artificial, cynically papering over any argument against the airport and developed using dodgy community consultation.
This is an airport that was announced by a Warringah based Prime Minister; backed up by a Point Piper Prime Minister; supported by a Manly based Premier; funded by a Sutherland based federal Treasurer; and advocated by a Hornsby based Minister for Urban Infrastructure who tells Western Sydney it is great to have a 24-hour-a-day airport, while regularly complaining himself about aircraft noise coming from curfew-protected Sydney Airport. These are politicians, backed up by media execs, who do not live in Western Sydney, reporting the comments of phantom community groups, claiming to speak for Western Sydney, but run out of the east.
Take the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue, with its chairperson, Christopher Brown. He loves Western Sydney; he just will not live with us! Check out the patrons of his organisation, the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue: Nick Greiner, Cameron Clyne, Dr Kerry Schott, Professor Peter Shergold—all mates of Chris Brown, and I am pretty sure that, like him, they do not open their eyes of a morning in Western Sydney. The dialogue group is a massive money-spinner, running conferences talking about Western Sydney that are not held in Western Sydney. You can attend if you stump up $500 for a ticket.
What political and business advocates of this project are interested in is the commercial opportunity flowing from a 24-hour airport based in Sydney's west, an operation that will never affect them personally. Many of these politicians and businesses do not champion better funding for schools that are falling apart in Sydney's west. They do not push for improvements to our run-down public transport infrastructure or toll-free motorways to ease crippling road congestion. They do not push for infrastructure that Western Sydney residents actually need. They are never outraged by hospital ward closures in our area or horrified that our hospitals are listed as some of the most stressed in New South Wales. But they do say the answer to all those problems is Badgerys Creek Airport—seriously. They point to the economic and job benefits of an airport that will not be fully operational until the second half of this century. It will be interesting to see if their jobs figures get revised as a result of automation and technological change.
But here is a test for politicians and businesspeople that tell us Badgerys Creek Airport, propped up by billions in public funds, is good for jobs. Instead of waiting for jobs to land in the second half of this century, why don't we generate jobs for Sydneysiders right now through one simple move: lift the number of planes that land every hour at Sydney Airport, not by 100 an hour or 50 or 20 or 10 but just by five extra planes every hour. You extend the life and efficiency of Sydney Airport without spending one extra public dollar, boosting economic activity, tourism and jobs. A jobs and growth government would race to do that, surely? They will not, because, like most advocates for this airport, they are hypocrites, pushing for a development that will affect the quality of life for the west of Sydney, using terms they would never accept themselves. And they will never accept a curfew on Badgerys because it would render the project uneconomic.
So why are we pouring billions into an airport that Qantas will not move to, that Virgin will not move to and that is only economic if it operates 24 hours a day? Outgoing head of IATA Tony Tyler said it was generally better to have a single airport as a hub. He said:
I don't know how they plan to divide the traffic distribution … It is quite hard to think of a way that really works.
That begs the question: are we really talking about two airports in a future Sydney?
I am pretty certain this speech will not be reported within Sydney media, because they have made up their minds. They are making sure this airport gets built, no matter what Western Sydney residents think. But, to residents in Western Sydney who see this speech, all I ask you to do is to share it among your friends, along with the speeches made last week by Senator Doug Cameron and Member for Macquarie Susan Templeman, because we are keen for you to hear not just the arguments for this airport but the way the arguments are being made. We also want you to get what other Sydneysiders enjoy—economic opportunity and a good quality of life. You deserve both, without sacrificing one for the other.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House that this weekend, on Sunday, 23 October, my home city of Toowoomba will see a history-making event, and that is the departure from our relatively new Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport of a business delegation direct from our city of Toowoomba to Shanghai. We will see well over 200 delegates from our local business community, from agriculture, resources and other interests across our region, leave on a Qantas chartered jet to go and look at opportunities in China—in Shanghai to start with and throughout China, for a period of quite some days.
This is a very exciting event for our region. It has been organised by Toowoomba and Surat Basin Enterprise and entitled the Access China 2016 business delegation. I take the opportunity to congratulate TSBE, Toowoomba and Surat Basin Enterprise; its board and particularly its executive chairman, Mr Shane Charles; and Dr Ben Lyons, another senior executive from this organisation, who has significant Chinese experience in his own career over quite some years. The delegation will be led, as I have suggested, by leading businesspeople from our region, including our mayor, Paul Antonio, the Mayor of the Toowoomba Regional Council, and other leading citizens.
I want to mention in particular Dr Mary Wagner, the matriarch of the Toowoomba community—sometimes she is referred to as 'the Queen of Toowoomba'. It is her sons who established, over just the last couple of years, the Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport. This airport is the first greenfields development of an airport in Australia in many, many decades, totally privately funded and developed by the Wagner family. It will be tremendous for them and our whole community to see Dr Mary Wagner leading the charge on this particular delegation.
The delegation itself will offer the delegates the latest business and industry updates from experts in the Asian—and particularly Chinese—marketplace. It will provide them with prequalified Chinese business matching and networking opportunities—really ramping up their market research and then, all going well, their entry into various market opportunities in the great country of China. As well as that, of course, they will have networking opportunities amongst themselves and, most particularly, business planning and development opportunities with those on the ground that they will need to speak to.
The target industry sectors for this delegation include agriculture. In my electorate of Groom, in the Darling Downs surrounding our city of Toowoomba, we enjoy the fact that we are amongst the most productive and diverse agricultural production regions in Australia. I know, Deputy Speaker Coulton, that you are proud of your region for similar reasons, and I am particularly proud of the Darling Downs. The delegation will provide opportunities for those involved in the health and aged care sector—keeping in mind that Toowoomba is a regional hub, if you like, for Northern New South Wales and Southern Queensland, from an inland perspective, for so many health services for families right across those areas.
Energy and resources, particularly out of the Surat Basin, west of Toowoomba, is a sector again targeted in this delegation. Another sector is sustainable design and manufacturing—of course, largely for agriculture, food manufacturing and so forth. We will see a number of delegates interested in that sector. Education is another major industry for our region. The University of Southern Queensland, TAFE Queensland South West, boarding schools and excellent secondary schools in our region have opportunities throughout Asia in terms of future students and staff as well. Lastly, is tourism; we are particularly proud of the fact that our annual Carnival of Flowers and southern inland Queensland tourism opportunities—of course, all facilitated by this new airport—provide significant opportunities for our region going forward.
I congratulate TSBE on arranging this delegation. In particular, I wish all of the delegates all the very best for this experience in AccessChina 2016. I look forward to hearing of the opportunities and the stories that they will bring home in the coming weeks.
I rise to remember Chris Stokman, whose contribution to our community will continue to inspire her friends and peers in the community sector for many years to come. Chris started her working life in a typing pool and then passed through the Public Service, working in Medicare and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, before finding her vocation in the community sector. As her younger brother Michael Cheyne explains:
Chris gave without thought of reward no matter the challenges in her own life. She could never afford to buy a house. Many of the cars she owned were, well, old wrecks. She never collected a fat pay cheque. Never had a big bank balance. Yet she was always there for others.
But Chris leaves behind the love and respect she earned through a life well lived.
Thinking about how Chris discovered her true vocation at the Early Morning Centre in recent years makes me realise it has always been in her nature to put others before herself and help those in need.
The Early Morning Centre was established in 2005 to provide a safe place for Canberra's most vulnerable people. And under Chris's leadership, for nine years from 2007, that is what it did. Chris and her colleagues shaped a place of acceptance and respect, a hub of advocacy for those who came through its doors. Providing free breakfasts is a core activity, but Chris was always looking for new services that would benefit the guests.
Under Chris's leadership, the Early Morning Centre grew into a true community services hub, with services ranging from shower and laundry facilities to legal and medical support. But Chris was always also looking to provide that vital, intangible support provided by inclusion in a community. Ongoing activities at the centre include a footy tipping competition run each year by one of the guests, art activities and the Jumpin' Gateway Singers. Chris realised how important sharing ideas and enjoyment is for creating common ground and belonging. The respect and affection of her colleagues is a testament to her character, but also to her working philosophy of absolute focus on the Early Morning Centre's guests. As Margaret Watt puts it, Chris's first response to any proposal would always be, 'How will this affect the guests?' She would weigh all suggestions with them in mind.
My office has tried to make a habit of supporting Chris's work by taking a group of Labor Party volunteers along every now and then to cook a barbecue lunch for the centre's guests. It is a practical gesture. We bring the food, the Early Morning Centre provides the barbecue, and the guests get a good meal and see a few different faces. It is a simple and uncomplicated offering, inspired and guided by Chris's own approach to supporting our vulnerable Canberrans.
There are many others in our community and beyond who have been similarly impressed and inspired by Chris's character. Karyn Walker, who worked with Chris on the Early Morning Centre's board, said:
Chris was such a strong and inspiring force for good in this world.
Whenever I would get a little bogged down in my day-to-day stuff, I only needed to have a cuppa with Chris to put everything back into perspective and gain a new burst of motivation.
Former Prime Minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, said:
I remember a number of times helping out on a number of mornings at the Centre with her when PM. A good human being. A Christian in daily life. The hardest challenge of all.
Peter Gordon, the Director of Economic Futures Australia, said:
... Chris was a wonderful person, so selfless and she created something that had never been seen in Canberra.
Carrie Leeson, Chief Executive Officer of Lifeline, said:
... One of earth's angels. I know my team are reeling from this loss ...
Chris's brother recognises the qualities that helped her build, and build on, so many human connections:
I know that if ever I find myself being too harsh, too impatient, too selfish, or just too plain cheeky, it will be Chris's voice that brings me back, that lets the light in.
And I know the Centre will continue as Chris would have wanted. And in every breakfast served, in every life touched, will be a memory of the compassionate human being she was.
Margaret Watt said:
When two Early Morning Centre volunteers visited Chris in hospital—
This was Monday of last week—
on the day before she died, the conversation was about the success of the recent Early Morning Centre fundraiser and planning ahead for the Early Morning Centre Christmas Lunch. She was always thinking of the guests.
Chris Stokman was a true Canberran. She loved Canberra and never wanted to live anywhere else. She had made a career change, and it is one that should inspire all of us to do a better job in our lives, to reach out to the most vulnerable, and to see those who are doing it tough as people just like us, who need a friendly word and a helping hand—never to be pitied and never to be scorned; always to be respected. She is survived by her mother, her brother, her daughter and her three grandchildren.
I rise to speak about the Willetton Basketball Association and its stadium. Shortly after I became the Liberal candidate for Tangney I got to learn about this impressive sporting organisation, which keeps hundreds of local kids fit and having fun every week. The chairman, Phil Nixon, and his army of volunteers have such a positive story to tell. With TVs, computers and technology taking up more of our time, team sport is even more important today.
Willetton Basketball Association has more than 300 teams, with 3,500 players supported by over 1,000 volunteers. They have the Willetton Tigers SBL men's and women's teams, and I congratulate the women's SBL team for their championship win earlier this year. With two seconds remaining on the clock, the Tigers beat the Joondalup Wolves 60 to 58. They have junior and adult basketball competitions, skills classes for children aged five to 13, a strong focus on developing the skills of referees and officials, school holiday camps and a close link with the Willetton Senior High School basketball scholarship program and other local high school sports programs
Thousands of people come from Lynwood, Ferndale, Riverton, Rossmoyne and Willetton, and many suburbs even beyond Tangney, but the current four-court stadium, run largely by volunteers, is now stretched beyond capacity. Over 150 kids are on the waiting list to play but space restrictions make it impossible, and if there are 150 kids on the list then there are definitely far more who have not even bothered to put their names down. An additional four sites are used to meet demand for Saturday competitions, but now all the available space at these sites has been used up too.
My electorate is home to many young families, attracted to the region in part by Tangney's great local schools. We hear a lot about drugs and crime in our community, but I stand here today talking about hundreds of kids who want to play team sport but cannot because of a lack of infrastructure. It appears, sadly, that Willetton Basketball Association was not on the federal government's radar before the election campaign, and I have moved quickly to change that. A tour of Willetton Basketball Stadium was added to the agenda of as many ministers as possible during the federal election campaign. The Treasurer, the foreign minister, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services and the WA Treasurer all got to see the expansion plans.
Willetton Basketball Association want to double their stadium with four more indoor courts, male and female change rooms, meeting rooms, a hall space, offices and space for supporting health services, such as a physio. The current estimated cost is $11 million; however, with the reduction in construction prices in WA, it is hoped the project may cost less. I hope the expansion will be a shared funding arrangement between federal and state governments and the local council, with a significant amount of fundraising from the Willetton Basketball Association. During his visit the Treasurer was seen shooting hoops with SBL players and was really impressed by the association's self-funding commitment. He said, 'The most impressive part of the proposal is that they have been able to raise $650,000 themselves and will commit to more.'
I am committed to people and organisations that help themselves to make our community better. Willetton Basketball is working hard to rally volunteers and fundraising to achieve its goals. Until the council elections last year, the City of Canning had been under administration and did not support the expansion project. This support was a vital step in being able to make a Stronger Regions grant application. The plan to apply for Stronger Regions funding was also impacted during the campaign by the replacement of the Stronger Regions Fund with the Building Better Regions Fund and the decision that only non-metropolitan projects would be funded from this new grant pool. But this will not deter me. I have made it clear to my community that I will work hard to find funding for this important Tangney project. My determination to see construction started is now fully backed by the City of Canning, which is running efficiently and proactively under the leadership of the new mayor and a new CEO.
Council also has voted to approve $40,000 for the essential planning needed to prepare applications for federal and state funding. I acknowledge Councillor Ben Kunze and Deputy Mayor Lindsay Holland, who have worked tirelessly in support of the Willetton Basketball Stadium expansion project. With local government support now in place, federal funding consideration is important during this term of government. I look forward to working with ministers to find the federal contribution to this project to get more kids playing weekly team sport in my region.
I rise today to speak of my recent participation in the 2016 Rim of the Pacific Exercise, otherwise known as RIMPAC, as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program.
The ADF Parliamentary Program has been running since 2000. It is an exceptional program enabling parliamentarians to spend time in the field interacting directly with Defence personnel. Australia leads the way in exchange programs such as this, providing elected representatives the opportunity to observe at a granular level the unique and challenging aspects of service life. In return, ADF personnel get to observe the operation of our parliament and the working lives of MPs in action.
During RIMPAC I met with many of our Pacific rim partners for whom such an exchange program with their parliamentary colleagues was a foreign concept, but they liked what they saw of the non-sanitised treatment that Australian politicians received—as did I.
The RIMPAC exercise has been held every two years since 1971. It is the world's largest multinational maritime exercise. It provides an opportunity for Australia to command a multinational force, utilise the US Pacific Missile Range Facility and enhance our interoperability with regional forces. During RIMPAC Australia held many of the very senior positions within the operation. This is recognition of Australia's early involvement and our reliability as a partner. Australia has participated in every RIMPAC since 1971, making it one of the four original participating nations. The operation included 27 nations, 45 ships, five submarines, more than 200 aircraft and 25,000 personnel, including more than 1,650 ADF personnel. I was able to speak with many Australian servicemen and women during the course of RIMPAC and their consistent message, regardless of rank or gender, was just how much they valued the opportunity to work alongside our multinational partners: the friendships formed and the building of international cooperation and interoperability.
I wish to thank Major Lisa Collie, who replaced Jim Lewis, for her careful management of the ADF program in Canberra. But I today want to pay a special tribute to Major Gina Rasmussen who coordinated my program from start to finish, making it both memorable and at times exhausting but absolutely never dull. Thank you also to Commodore Mal Wise, Commander Timothy Byles and Sub-Lieutenant Brendan Schofield—my erstwhile escort everywhere I went—for all the efforts you put into making sure that I was exposed to every facet of the military exercise.
To the entire crew of the HMAS Warramunga, thank you for making me feel so welcome. In particular, I thank Commander Andrew Willis and Lieutenant Commander Matthew Ryall for allowing me such unfettered access to your crew and the opportunity to view the HMAS Warramunga capabilities from the basement to the bridge; Lieutenant Rayne Stibbard, who was my chaperon around the HMAS Warramunga and who I suggest drew the short straw, along with two other women, in having to share a cabin with the civilian; and also Leading Seaman Holly Bradshaw, who hosted me for breakfast in the junior sailor's mess. Whilst on board the HMAS Warramunga, I also met with Rear-Admiral Stuart Mayer, Commander of the Australian fleet, who joined the ship to observe the missile launch.
I also want to thank the crew of the HMAS Canberra. Prior to attending RIMPAC, the HMAS Canberra was assisting the Fijian people in the wake of Tropical Cyclone Winston. I was so proud listening to those young men and women of the HMAS Canberra speak about their work helping the people of Fiji rebuild their lives and of their enthusiasm to return to Fiji post-RIMPAC to build on those relationships. In particular, I would like to thank the HMAS Canberra's Commander Jason Hunter and Captain Chris Smith. Thank you both for being so hospitable and for organising an opportunity for me to dine with sailors from my own home town, the Newcastle-Hunter region. I want to thank Lieutenant Colonel Michael Bassingthwaighte, the commanding officer of the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, who are ordinarily based in Townsville.
Thank you for the opportunity to work alongside you and to gain just some insight into your lives, the opportunities and challenges of a service life. I remain both grateful and indebted.
The Very Reverend John Flynn, OBE, DD, also known affectionately as Flynn of the Inland, was born at Moliagul in central Victoria on 25 November 1880 and died on 5 May 1951. My seat of Flynn is a large, rural electorate covering over 133,000 square kilometres. It is home to thousands of graziers, station hands and miners living in rural and remote areas, often hundreds of kilometres from services such as base hospitals. It is this remoteness that provides a link between so many of Flynn's residents and the man for which the electorate has been named, John Flynn. Many in this place may know Everald Compton. I think I have seen him lurking around the House today, actually! He has written a book about the great man; I thoroughly recommend it.
During his infancy, Flynn's family lived in various parts of Victoria, finally ending up in Sunshine in Melbourne. Here, John first heard romantic tales about the north, the vast outback, when his father's business partner mounted an unsuccessful business venture to the far north of the country. After graduating from secondary school, a young Flynn became a schoolteacher. In 1903, he joined the ministry and began studying theology, followed by divinity. He graduated and was ordained in 1911.
He began work in a missionary in the north-east of South Australia. At Beltana, he developed an appreciation for life in the bush. He was commissioned to prepare a report on life in the Northern Territory to be presented to the Presbyterian Church in 1912. Flynn's report included proposals for inland missions prompted the general assembly to act upon his recommendations, and they appointed Flynn the head of a new organisation called the Australian Inland Mission, AIM. The purpose of the AIM was to administer the spiritual, social and medical needs of the people of the outback.
It was through reading a letter from Victorian medical student and war hero, Lieutenant Clifford Peel, that Flynn began to develop his ideas of using air travel to provide medical services to the great interior. Over the next 10 years, Flynn campaigned for an aerial medical service. His vision was to provide a 'mantle of safety' for the people in the bush. His vision became a reality when his long-time supporter, HV McKay, left a large bequest—some 2,000 pounds in those days—for aerial equipment which enabled Flynn to get the Royal Flying Doctor Service airborne.
With the assistance of Qantas founder, Hudson Fysh, the Royal Flying Doctor Service became a reality with the lease of a Qantas aircraft. The first flying doctor flight took off from Cloncurry, in central western Queensland, on the 17 May 1928. From this pioneering beginning with a single-engine biplane, Flynn developed the aerial service into an irreplaceable bastion of country life. Through the development of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Flynn was at the forefront of a myriad of changes that made the lives of those in the bush much safer and easier. This included innovations like portable, pedal-powered radio sets—these were replaced by transistor sets—that allowed full communication between patients and doctors. But also made it possible for people to now communicate with each other. This technology led to the first School of the Air opening in Alice Springs in 1951, which is a service now synonymous with life in the bush.
The life of John Flynn was an important one. He served the people of outback Australian is an ever-increasing role. He improved the living standards for those who lived and chose to live in the bush. There is something that each and every resident of the Flynn electorate will take to their graves: that is this great man, who did so much for the bush.
House adjourned at 16 : 59
As you know, spring is a time for renewal, and in McEwen we take this time very, very seriously with festivals and food celebrations right across the electorate. Last week I had the pleasure of attending the 15th annual Tastes of the Goulburn Festival in Seymour. The festival is held to give local winemakers, brewers, restauranteurs, producers and craftsmen an opportunity to showcase just what this region has to offer.
Seymour came out in force for this event, and I had a marvellous time catching up with local volunteers and community groups, hearing all about the local news and getting up to date on how the farming season is looking for our regional farmers.
Special thanks have got to go to Glenys and Paul Legins for inviting me up there and taking me around and helping me enjoy the day. We were entertained by of course Seymour FM103.9 on your dial where we listened to the dulcet tones of Aunty Alice as she kept us entertained during the morning. The Scouts were out in force, spending the day sharing their messages of peace and making sure that people who caught the steam train up had a great time.
With renewal, of course, always comes reflection, and this time of the year it is the Diwali festivals that happen right across our nation. The festival of lights is celebrated. Diwali is a significant event in the Hindu calendar not just marking the new year but it is a time to celebrate the core qualities of life—family, community and equity while cultivating optimism for what is yet to come. With Diwali, we caste out the light that dispels ignorance, darkness and despair—and maybe we need a few more lights over the other side there, I think—to bring in the lights of hope, peace, freedom and togetherness.
I was proud to sponsor this event, because it is such an exciting event which brings multicultural communities and religions together to take part in this renewal. It is what makes Whittlesea so important and such a great place to be when you have got the Whittlesea multicultural association—people like Tom Joseph and all the volunteers and the staff—bringing all our communities together and sharing in the sounds and tastes that Diwali has to offer. It is something that is so important, and we need to keep nurturing it.
It also brings me to my final acknowledgment for today: on Saturday I had the honour of being present for the unveiling of the plinth of honour to Seymour's own 37AIF Battalion. This year is the 100th anniversary of the battalion's formation, brought together in Seymour and trained at Puckapunyal, for the First World War.
A thousand of these men went to war, locals, and, at the end of the war only 90 of them survived. These were some of our finest raiding battalions that went to the First World War and made sure that they did their very best. There were men, many decorated soldiers in the event, including Captain Robert Grieve who was awarded the Victoria Cross.
The high point of the day was knowing that the plinth was being opened by living relatives of the men who fought in the 37th Battalion. And I think it is so important that we have the Light Horse Memorial Park committee and the Lions Club doing these things. (Time expired)
I rise to bring up the issue of an educational program called Building Respectful Relationships, which is currently being taught in Victorian schools with plans for it to come to New South Wales. One of the segments that I have great concerns about is a role-playing game where year 9 girls get to play characters. One of those characters is Megan, and these are the words on the character card from the curriculum:
Megan is 17, lives in the city and works in a local cafe. She has had 15 sexual partners and describes herself as bisexual.
… … …
She rarely practises safe sex … because she is often drunk when she has sex.
That is someone that your daughter could be playing in school today.
Another character they may be asked to play is Grace.
Grace is 16 and … has had four boyfriends and has been sexually active since she was 13.
Another character they may be asked to play—these are year 9 girls—is that of Kelly. The character card for Kelly says:
Kelly is 14, in Year 9 and is very interested in girls. She is not sure but thinks she might be a lesbian.
Kelly says:
‘I think I’m a lesbian but I’m not sure because I have also been attracted to a boy. I guess this gives me more options …'
I do not believe that such sexualised role-playing has a part in our schools, and I cannot believe that any parent or grandparent of a year 9 girl would consent to their daughter being asked to play Kelly, Grace or Megan. Why is this being done? We know, from psychological studies, that, when there is role-playing, some of the character can bleed into the role-playing participant. I put it that it is completely against the best interests of our society to have young girls in year 9 being given these role-playing cards. The instructions given to teachers say:
* Give each of the students a "character card" … a name tag and hat with their character name on it.
* Explain that they will be acting as a group of young people who have come together …
* Give them time to read their character description and think about their role—
Think about playing those highly sexualised roles—
* Give them a few minutes to get into their character.
What does a year 9 girl do to get into a role where she is 17 and lives in the city and has 15 sexual partners and describes herself as bisexual? I do not believe this has any place in our education system, and I hope that members of the opposition agree with me.
Earlier this year I was contacted by a number of parents of local Nippers regarding Botany pool. Constructed in 1966, Botany pool has served our community well but is in dire need of an upgrade. The pool is only open for half of the year, during the warmer months. With a population influx into Botany because of a number of large developments, and particularly a lot of young families moving into the area, there is a great need for swimming lessons for kids, aqua-aerobics, fitness facilities, squad training and just general swimming facilities for the public in that area to be open all year round, not just for six months of the year. Particularly there is a need for a heated indoor pool in Botany.
When I met with these parents, they expressed that there was a need for me to help them to campaign to get Botany pool to open all year round, and that is exactly what I have done. In the wake of that meeting, I launched a petition campaign in the local community, and I was overwhelmed by the response of local residents. I met with local councillors; I lobbied internally within the federal parliamentary Labor Party; and Labor responded. In the lead-up to the last election, we went to Botany pool and announced that, if elected, a Labor government would devote $10 million in funding and would partner with City of Botany Bay council, who would also pledge $10 million, to deliver a $20 million upgrade to Botany pool, to open this important facility all year round and develop a 25-metre indoor heated pool.
Although the Labor Party was not elected at the recent federal election, I remain committed and determined to deliver this important infrastructure upgrade to our community. I am going to call on the Turnbull government to support this project through funding, to deliver $10 million from the Commonwealth to assist our community to upgrade this pool. In the meantime, unfortunately, Botany council has been sacked and merged with Rockdale City Council to form Bayside Council. An administrator has been appointed. So there is a bit of doubt over the council's commitment to this partnership. I have met with the new administrator, Greg Wright, and put to him that this is a very important infrastructure project for our local community and I want Botany council to meet the commitment that was made in the lead-up to the election and to pledge $10 million for this important infrastructure upgrade. I will continue to meet with the council. I am meeting with the new interim general manager in a few weeks about this issue. I will continue to push the Turnbull government to deliver this very important infrastructure upgrade for our community. Botany needs a heated indoor pool that is open all year round.
The lazy application of cashless welfare is, in some cases, making life worse not better. I want to recognise the work of Andrew Forrest. In his National Press Club address last week, Mr Forrest added great strength and experience to the discussion on welfare reform. Mr Forrest said: 'We want a nation where everyone can have a crack without fear of scorn for failure, a nation of integrity and generosity. We are not talking about cutting payments but instead seeing welfare as a guiding hand up and not just a mindless hand out.'
In his report The Forrest review: creating parity, the fifth recommendation was the implementation of a healthy welfare card. The government passed legislation to trial this card in Ceduna and the East Kimberley, and feedback shows this card is making a real difference. Mr Forrest pointed out that ambulance alcohol related call-outs are down some 30 per cent, deliveries of fresh fruit and vegetables have doubled, money going into poker machines has dropped by over 30 per cent, sales from the Wyndham bottle shop are down by 40 per cent and more school uniforms are being sold. Mr Forrest said: 'This card is empowering people to make worthy choices about their lives. Through these choices, children will go to school with food in their bellies. It will be the kids becoming healthy, not the crystal meth dealer growing fat.' I could not agree more.
The lazy application of cash can sometimes not only make the recipient's life worse, it severely impacts those around them. One grandmother shared her experience with me this week. Let me share with you her story—one that is all too familiar. She had taken over the care of her grandchildren because their mother was homeless—in her own words, 'wasting Centrelink payments on drugs and alcohol'. She was proud that while in her care those children thrived, both physically and mentally. The children were removed from their mother's screams while coming down from drug abuse, or from her sleeping for days after a drug binge. There were no longer strangers coming in and out of their home. Importantly, they attended school 100 per cent, and their grades picked up.
As it turns out, while the children were in the care of their grandmother, their mother was fraudulently claiming Centrelink payments for them. The mother was caught out and removed those children from the safety of their grandparents' care. Her one and only reason was to retain that direct cash welfare benefit. Those children are now missing school. Their utilities are disconnected because their mother has not paid any bills with the money she receives. The children no longer eat healthy food unless it is supplied by their grandparents. This grandmother concluded: 'I strongly agree with the implementation of a cashless healthy welfare card, otherwise more children will be undernourished, poorly educated and think that a payment from the government is the norm. They will be unemployable and liable to become entrenched in the welfare cycle.' If the job of the welfare system is to make lives better, then the lazy application of cash just is not working.
The Sunday before last, on World Animal Day, I joined with hundreds of people on Stirling Bridge in Fremantle as part of the sixth annual Human Chain event that calls for an end to live export. The people in my electorate live with the confronting reality of this trade, and I support the long-held view of the community I represent. I agree with animal welfare advocates who argue that sheep and cattle are simply not long-distance freight.
We have seen countless incidents that show how live export is essentially incompatible with animal welfare. As long ago as 1985, the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare said that the live export trade is 'inimical to good animal welfare'. Since that time, attempts to improve regulation of the industry have not stopped a constant stream of unacceptable incidents. In many cases we only learn of these episodes through the unstinting work of animal welfare advocates like Stop Live Exports and Animals Australia. It is entirely reasonable to argue for a plan to transition out of live export, and it should be noted that there are industry players, like Elders, who have reached the same conclusion.
I welcome the recent opening of the $25 million dollar Kimberley Meat Company abattoir, run by Yeeda Australian Rangeland Meat in Western Australia, the first processing facility to operate in that region for more than 20 years. The abattoir will boost local capability, employment opportunities and economic security for the northern cattle industry. The owner of Yeeda, Jack Burton, has said, quite rightly, that cattle producers are 'not just married to live export', and he is to be congratulated for investing in the high-value return and the creation of local jobs that come from locally processed meat.
People in my electorate are proud to live in a working, trading, publicly owned port, and they want that function to continue. But they also want to see Australia make the transition out of the live export industry. That is not a nimby view. It is not because people want the trade to go elsewhere or because they are oblivious to the economic interests of farmers. It is because we have, for decades, seen up close the terrible conditions in which animals are transported over long distances. Like many Australians, we have had enough of the steady parade of mistreatment and cruelty that has not been, and is not being, regulated out of this trade.
This is not an industry that has existed on any real scale since time immemorial. There is an alternative that can be supported and developed. There is a just transition that can occur with greater economic security for producers, more regional jobs and less animal suffering. It should not be outrageous to say that the long-distance transport of animals for slaughter is a practice that can and should come to an end, especially when we acknowledge here and now, 30 years later, that live export remains inimical to good animal welfare.
I rise to congratulate the Ration Shed Museum in Cherbourg on its successful application for funding from the coalition government's Indigenous Advancement Strategy. Cherbourg, the home of the Waka Waka people, is an Aboriginal community in my electorate that was settled by the Salvation Army in 1899 and taken over as a government settlement in 1904. Under the Aboriginal Protection Act, the government controlled almost every aspect of life at the settlement, including the amount of food that people consumed, food which was distributed at the ration shed. Today, Cherbourg is governed by its own elected council.
Cherbourg's interesting history is both happy and sad, and it is very important that the story of its people continues to be told. The Ration Shed Museum is a valuable regional asset and forms part of Cherbourg's historical precinct. It opened in 2004, and its interpretive displays convey the history of Cherbourg and its people. Run by chairperson Sandra Morgan, the Ration Shed Museum houses art, photographic displays and documents, and it is an iconic tourist attraction that helps to sustain the local community. A range of educational, artistic and cultural courses are delivered at the Ration Shed. Events and exhibitions engage both the community and visitors to Cherbourg, giving them an authentic experience of how life in Cherbourg was and how the community has grown and developed over the years.
In 2016, approximately 1,800 people visited the Ration Shed to learn more about local Aboriginal history, and I trust the funding I am announcing today will enable the Ration Shed to attract more visitors. The coalition government is providing $237,000 to Cherbourg's historical precinct to help it to continue the important work of the Ration Shed over the next year.
The Ration Shed Museum is well integrated into the Cherbourg community. It provides jobs for 11 people, and there are opportunities to create more local jobs through the project. The funding will be used to improve the safety standards of buildings in the historical precinct so they can better accommodate visitors. The grant will also strengthen the organisation by supporting governance, leadership and the development of strategies to improve its long-term sustainability. Funding will also provide new education opportunities for preschool children, youth, women, artists and people with disabilities, and it will assist with the rehabilitation of offenders through workshops and activities. I look forward to visiting the Ration Shed on Tuesday, and I congratulate Sandra Morgan and her committee on the success of their application.
I rise to speak on the very real damage that is being inflicted on communities across Australia as a result of this government's plans to cut funding for community legal centres, Aboriginal legal centres and legal aid bodies by a massive 30 per cent from 1 July next year. Every year, community legal centres help hundreds of thousands of Australians in times of need, including victims of domestic violence and financial fraud. Despite the importance of these frontline services, Malcolm Turnbull has cut $54 million from the budgets of our legal bodies. In my electorate of Newcastle, the Hunter Community Legal Centre assists over 2,300 clients each year with a wide range of complex legal matters, including family violence, tenancy, debt and family law disputes.
The Hunter Community Legal Centre, like all other community legal centres, is stretched and under-resourced. Last year alone 160,000 people were turned away from community legal centres across Australia due to capacity constraints.
That is why at the last election Labor made clear that we understand that when you cut community legal centres it is the communities that suffer. That is why we pledged a $34 million boost for community legal centres, in addition to the $43 million we had already announced as part of a landmark domestic violence package. For the Hunter Community Legal Centre that meant a much needed injection of $300,000 over three years—funds that would have helped provide representation to some of the most vulnerable people in our community at times of great need. Sadly, the Turnbull Liberal government are sticking with their plan to proceed with these cuts.
At a recent roundtable discussion I held with frontline community services in my electorate of Newcastle, the effect of these and other cuts that have already kicked in were described in saddening detail. The roundtable included Newcastle community groups such as ACON, the Intellectual Disability Rights Service, the Community Disability Alliance Hunter, Nova for Women and Children, BaptistCare and the Hunter Community Legal Centre and the St Vincent de Paul Society. It was made clear to me during these discussions that these cuts are not shouldered by just the community legal centre. People who present to frontline services often have complex, interrelated problems. So these community groups do not exist in silos. They are relying on each other all the time. When this government rip money from the community legal centres they are hurting everybody.
Access to justice is a fundamental right of all Australians, and I call on the government to reverse this funding cut and work with our community legal centres to ensure the most vulnerable get the help they need. (Time expired)
Youth unemployment is a problem the world over. In Spain it is over 40 per cent. In Greece it is over 50 per cent. Relatively speaking, you could say we are lucky. Youth unemployment in Australia is currently around 13 per cent, which is comparable with rates in the UK and the US. But it is in rural and regional areas where it is too high, hovering around 20 per cent.
In an address to the National Press Club last month, the Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, outlined a new direction for welfare reform called the priority investment approach—an evidence based welfare policy that will, among other things, help identify new ideas for providing avenues out of welfare and into employment for those at high risk of welfare dependency.
The evidence thus far points to three particular groups facing poor long-term outcomes—young carers, young parents and young students. The common word here, of course, is 'young'. I pay tribute to this approach, including the $96 million to be spent on a Try, Test and Learn Fund which will encourage people to effectively BYO their ideas and put forward their ideas to improve lives and increase people's self-reliance over time. I stand in the chamber today to encourage non-government organisations to BYO their new ideas to address youth unemployment through youth entrepreneurship.
If a young person cannot find a job then there is no reason why society cannot give them the tools and the discipline to create their own. Starting your own business is not for everyone, but there are thousands of young Australians across the country who have the capacity to do so. In my experience, young people struggle with three things in starting their own business: experience, networks and money. Our challenge is to find new ways to wrap these three things around young people and help them unleash their creative genius to start their own businesses.
I take inspiration from our local groups in the seat of Fairfax on this—groups such as Spark Bureau and the innovation centre and programs such as the Startup Weekend for Youth and the Mayor's Telstra Technology Awards. One group I am close to is Generation Innovation, along with some terrific schools, including Burnside State High School and Mountain Creek State High School, who are empowering young people through enterprise. Youth entrepreneurship as a solution to youth unemployment is worthy of further exploration. I thank the chamber for this opportunity to speak on it.
Last month I was delighted to attend two wonderful community events in Doveton: the Doveton annual show the Celebrate Doveton event. On 18 September I attended the 12th annual Doveton Show, which was attended by about 7,000 people. The previous year I think 27,000 people attended the show and it is at a facility called Myuna Farm, which was an initiative funded by the Hawke and Keating governments in particular. My predecessor in Holt, Gareth Evans, ensured that we got the funding many, many years ago. It is an iconic community facility. It is a mixture of country meets city but it is in Doveton.
The event itself was outstandingly successful. As I said, there were 7,000 people who came to this event, for a gold coin donation. This is held at the same time as the Melbourne Show and, unfortunately for the Melbourne Show, there are a lot of people who live in my constituency who simply cannot afford the price of entry plus the show bags. So what they do is they go en masse—as I said, there were 27,000 people last year, when the weather was a little bit better—to this event. This event has show bags, artistic presentations, animals, rides, arts and crafts—you name it. It has the whole gamut of things that you would want to see if you were taking your family to a great event.
I would like to commend the people who run the facility—in particular, the manager, Steve Hill—for doing such a marvellous job. It is the changing face of Doveton that we should be talking about in positive terms rather than negative terms. So much good comes from the diversity that makes our country the great country that it is, and I saw that diversity on abundant display at this event. So I would like to congratulate the Doveton Neighbourhood Learning Centre for running an amazing event that was free of charge and attended by many hundreds of people.
In the time remaining, I would like to congratulate the Salvation Army for the new Project of Hope caravan that they launched to assist people who need employment. Doveton is an area that gets a lot of bad press, but it is full of hope and will continue to be a great area to represent.
I would like to speak on the Rookwood weir proposal. Central Queensland is a diverse region with different people and different industries. Not only do we have the largest mandarin plantation in the Southern Hemisphere, we have the Bowen Basin, full of rich coking coal and thermal coal. We have three aluminium refineries and smelters in Gladstone which are fed by bauxite from Weipa. We have three gas plants fuelled by CSG. CQ also has agricultural production. Beef production is paramount but we also have blueberries and macadamias, cotton, sunflower, wheat and chickpeas. Of course, we have a diverse range of other agricultural products, but there are too many to mention. We also have goldmines in Flynn and sapphire mines at Sapphire and Rubyvale.
These industries drive the local economy and jobs and are testament to how diverse and important the region is to the national economy. The people of Flynn are also very diverse. Despite their diversity, they all have some common needs and goals. On my travels around the electorate, it is quite clear that people want to see more jobs, more water and more affordable electricity to drive industries. They want Rookwood weir. They want the 2,100 jobs in construction and the $1 billion in agricultural investment to follow. They want to know that cities like Gladstone and Rockhampton will have sufficient water for future development—a future with industry and economic growth. They also want to know that we can still build big things through major projects for the area and that we can droughtproof the whole of Central Queensland.
However, we have run into a wall block. The Queensland state government does not seem to share our goals or what the constituents of Central Queensland want. We have committed $130 million to the construction of Rookwood Weir and $2 million for a feasibility study to conduct the business case and so on. This only gets us halfway there, and we need the state government to back our plan with another $130 million to get the job done. The state government needs to serve the people by fronting up with the balance and the construction funds that are desperately needed to achieve these goals, to prioritise the business case and to get the job done as soon as possible. The attitude of the government leaves me a little bit astounded; however, it must address this issue as soon as possible. We want the Rookwood Weir.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
We certainly will need to have some discussion, because the nature of the matter under consideration that is before the House is to approve an appropriation for infrastructure. The context for this is that the previous two years appropriations for infrastructure have certainly not been delivered. Last year there was a gap of some $1 billion between what was anticipated to be spent in the 2014 budget and what actually happened. But that looks pretty good compared with the performance in the last financial year, 2015-16, which shows that, in spite of the fact that the government committed, with all of its rhetoric, to spend some $8 billion on infrastructure, the actual figure—the final budget outcome for 2015-16—is just $5.5 billion. The $5.5 billion of course includes the one-off payment, in rounded figures, of $500 million to WA as compensation for the GST. What we are left with, essentially, is a $3 billion gap between what the government said it would spend and what the government has actually invested. That is because this is a government that simply has no idea when it comes to nation building.
When the government came into office, they cut funds from projects that were ready to go in order to fund projects that had no prospect, in some cases, of going anywhere. There is a gap between rhetoric and reality. To be fair to the cabinet minister, his junior minister this week—his errand boy, if you like—made a statement about the $50 billion of expenditure, once again, that was expected. Whereas, year on year, up to the end of the decade, the figure is $30 billion, not $50 billion. When the government uses these big figures, they are talking about the never-never. When we look at what is actually happening, we see three categories: the first is projects that were stopped but that were ready to go and that had been approved by Infrastructure Australia, that were in the budget—projects like the Cross River Rail and the Melbourne Metro Rail Project.
The second category are those that were delayed because of government incompetence—projects like the latest section of the M80, which began just this month. The funding was actually in the budget in 2013 but was cut in 2014. Another project is the South Road in Adelaide, where the government said, 'No, we're not going to do Torrens to Torrens; we'll do Darlington first'—except Darlington was not ready and Torrens to Torrens was underway. So they stopped work on that South Road. Then there is the Perth Airport road link. There was $500 million in the budget in 2013 for public transport projects in Perth. That was cut in 2014 and then put in. More remarkably, projects have simply been slowed. Estimates show the Pacific Highway cut by $129 million; the Bruce Highway cut by $94 million; Gateway North cut by $54 million; Perth Freight Link cut by $88 million; Adelaide South Road cut by $92 million; Goodwood and Torrens Junction rail project cut by $232 million—cut from an IA approved project that was underway and stopped by this government; Black Spots cut by $34 million; bridge renewal cut by $24 million; and heavy vehicle cut by $26 million.
This is a government that does not actually have a plan for jobs and growth. If it did, infrastructure would be at the centre of it—but that is not what we see.
If it would assist members opposite, I would encourage them to make their contributions and I will answer as a job lot in the future.
I thank the minister, but I cannot thank the minister for the actions of his government when it comes to this portfolio. There is no shortage of members in this place who started their political life in local government—no shortage of them. Unfortunately, when it comes to members of the government, once they enter this place they seem to forget the important contribution that local government makes to civic and economic life in this country. Members opposite have supported the decision of their ministers and their government in reducing funding to local government by close to $1 billion since 2014-15. Close to $1 billion—$925 million—has been slashed from local government financial assistance grants since the 2014-15 budget.
It is important that this house knows what the future of financial assistance grants to councils around the country is going to be under a future Turnbull government. The impact on local governments cannot be underestimated. I have here some examples which I think should be interesting to the minister. Indeed, the minister, as a proud Victorian, should be acquainted with the impact that these cuts are having in his own state. The Victorian Grants Commission only last week published an interesting report that showed the results of the government's heartless cuts to financial assistance grants on his state alone—a cut of $200 million. So $200 million is no longer available for funding the important services provided by Victorian local governments.
Around the country we are seeing the impact of these cuts hurting very, very hard. The Livingstone Shire Council in Queensland are facing a cumulative loss of $2.7 million as a result of this government's cuts to their services. It is no surprise to members in this place that the state of Tasmania is struggling economically. They have limited capacity to raise additional revenues at the local government level, and they are incredibly reliant on the financial assistance grants for the provision of their services. Indeed, for the Burnie City Council of Tasmania, the financial assistance grants represent 7.2 per cent of council's total operating expenditure. The minister might say, 'Well, it's up to the Burnie council to just up the rates.' The Burnie council has some of the highest rates in Tasmania. In a very low-SES area of the state, as anyone who knows anything about Tasmania would attest to, the result of these heartless cuts will be the closure of services, the laying off of staff and, indeed, a pullback from some of the important capital works programs that the council would otherwise be planning.
In the South Burnett Region in Queensland, the South Burnett Regional Council is looking at significant cuts as well, with staff reductions of between 28 and 30 full-time equivalent staff. Again, that is in another struggling region.
The questions that the minister has to answer in this chamber are: what is the future of the Financial Assistance Grant? Can the minister guarantee that there will not be another round of financial assistance grants freezes? What action is the government going to take to ensure that these struggling councils from around the country are going to be put in the same position as they would have been had the Abbott-Turnbull government not imposed these Financial Assistant Grant freezes? How can the government ensure that these councils are going to be in a position to provide the vital services that their residents, their rate payers, so sorely rely on?
It is not my intention to detain the chamber any longer than I have to. If the minister has the opportunity after answering the opposition's questions in this place, could he also give a quick update on the Toowoomba range crossing and where things are at in my electorate.
I want to raise the vexed matter of East West Link and the very damning audit that the Australian National Audit Office released regarding the federal funding of this project. Just to set some context, this is a project that this government decided to fund at the expense of shovel-ready public transport projects that had been committed to under the last Labor government. This government, when it came to power in 2013, cancelled vital public transport projects and deferred assistance for some of these projects to fund this dog of a project. This is a dog of a project that economic modelling showed would return 45c for every dollar of funding invested. Let me repeat that: 45c for every dollar spent—that is how awful this project was!
I have read a few ANAO reports in my time, and this has to take the cake for the quality of the condemnations in the findings. I will just to go through a few of them. Firstly, the government approved $3 billion in funding before a merit assessment of the project had been completed. The then Liberal Victorian government did not even submit it to Infrastructure Australia for stage 2, and this joke of a federal government approved it without the project having been presented to or assessed by Infrastructure Australia, the vital independent expert body in this field. Secondly, this approval was contradictory to warnings from the minister's own department to wait until the assessment had been completed. The department tried to act honourably in this process and they were sidelined by the Abbott-Turnbull government and its ideological obsession with road funding. Thirdly, again, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development warned against making a $1½ billion advance payment, when there was absolutely no need to. Its own department warned there was no need to allocate and divert $1½ billion into advance payments. Fourthly, the ANAO found that this decision was driven purely by the government's cynical desire to inflate the 2013-14 budget deficit and reduce its horrendous 2014-15 budget deficit. It is very rare for the ANAO to go to the political motivations of government—they are usually a bit more circumspect—but in this case they made it very clear that the only reason this government chose to make these advance payments was to inflate a budget deficit.
An honourable member interjecting—
To be fair, I think these two are slightly more honourable than their predecessors. Time will tell.
It is a very low bar!
It is a low bar. There will be an opportunity for them to prove us right or wrong.
The ANAO finding was extraordinary. The ANAO found that this decision had cost the Commonwealth $49 million in lost interest earnings. That is $49 million that could have supported women's refuges, that could have supported public transport, that could have supported people on Newstart and that could have provided jobs somewhere. It was lost because of this government's cynical political opportunism. The audit also found that there was poor risk management for the proposed stage 2 of the project and poor documentation across the entire project process from the Commonwealth. This litany of failures might have been understandable if this had been a rolled gold, you-beaut project that was going to deliver massive economic benefits for Victoria and the nation. As I said at the start, this project would actually lose money in terms of economic benefit. For every dollar invested, it would return 45c. This litany of failures will hang as a millstone around this government's neck.
I have a number of questions for the minister and, if he is unable to answer them, I ask that he please take them on notice. First, will the minister apologise for this disgraceful process? Secondly, will the minister apologise for wasting $49 million of taxpayers' funds? Thirdly, will the minister apologise for his government attempting to fund a project that returned 45c in every dollar invested? Fourthly, will the minister apologise for the government sidelining the independent experts, Infrastructure Australia, during this process? Fifthly, will the minister guarantee that this will never happen again under this awful government?
I remind the minister at the table that Victoria is Australia's fastest growing state and also home to one in four Australians. Melbourne is of course the fastest-growing city not just in Australia but, I believe, in the developed world. Yet it seems the Commonwealth government are unaware of this or are treating the Victorian community, particularly residents in Melbourne's outer suburbs, with utter contempt. Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, when you are not sitting in that chair, you may be aware of some of these issues. Only nine per cent of Commonwealth infrastructure spending is going to Victoria, short-changing the growth sectors of Lalor—
An honourable member interjecting—
I am looking forward to both ministers' responses, but it should be pleasing to have a minister for transport from Victoria. It is so disappointing that not only the minister from Victoria but both ministers are not engaging with their responsibilities when it comes to infrastructure provision in Victoria and, in particular, in Melbourne. This is particularly egregious because it is the case that there is a large evidence base supporting good projects. The member for Shortland has just taken us through the debacle that has been the Commonwealth indulgence over East West Link—again, a criminal indulgence, in defiance of the evidence, in defiance of any nation-building agenda on the part of this government.
As the local member for Scullin, if you want to talk about other road projects, the people of Epping North, Epping and Wollert are desperate; they have been waiting for far too long to see the Oherns Road project completed—a project that Labor, in federal government, committed to, a project that the Andrews government have committed funds to, a project that the City of Whittlesea have committed to, a project with a business case that stacks up, a project in need of federal government support. This is incredibly important to the growth area around Epping, the Epping central activity district, centred around the Northern Hospital, one of the busiest hospitals in Victoria. It is an area also containing the Melbourne markets—a matter that may be of interest to some of the constituents of the minister for transport. If the market is to prosper, we need the Oherns interchange project completed now. This is why Labor, at the last election, promised to fund the federal government's share—a fair share—of the Oherns Road interchange project. I thank the member for Grayndler for coming out to the site at Epping North to make that commitment, which was incredibly well received by the local communities, including communities in the McEwen electorate and, I am sure, people in the Calwell electorate.
However, the communities of Melbourne's northern suburbs are awaiting any meaningful response from the ministers opposite, a meaningful response to a project with a business case that stacks up and with clear community need underpinning it. The residential areas beyond the business area of Epping Central are going to grow by 40,000 over the next 10 years. This project must be built now. The quality of life of these residents and the ability of the businesses and the hospital to conduct themselves depend on immediate funding of this project.
The member for Grayndler talked about some of the wider issues in terms of the federal government's failure to support Victorian infrastructure—in particular, the appalling freeze on the M80, linking the electorate of Lalor with the electorates of Scullin, McEwen and Jagajaga, through Calwell. The delays there have had an enormous cost on my constituents and on business and residential amenity in Melbourne more generally. The failure to invest in public transport has put a big pause on making Melbourne the most livable, sustainable and productive city it can and should be. Growth areas, in particular, are stuck in traffic under this government, which is damaging lives as well as damaging growth. This government's failure to invest in city-shaping infrastructure in Melbourne, based on evidence, is not only meaning less time for people with their families—a big cost on livability—but it is a huge handbrake on productivity, a huge brake on economic growth, running completely counter to the rhetoric of this government around jobs and growth. So I ask the ministers, because I have trouble seeing anything about it in this government's budget: when will Victoria, and in particular Epping and Melbourne's north, get our fair share of infrastructure funding? Specifically, when will the minister commit to fund the O'Herns Road interchange project?
I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the consideration in detail of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, because I am very proud of this government's commitment to investment in infrastructure, both road and rail infrastructure, with a $50 billion commitment from 2013-14 to 2019-20. The government is very proud to be building for the future. We recognise that, if you invest in good infrastructure, you change people's lives and you save people's lives. It is changing lives by reducing congestion and improving productivity, and it is saving lives through road safety treatments, at a time when we have seen an increase in road trauma right across the nation but particularly in our regional areas. We are very committed to building the right infrastructure at the right time to create jobs and prosperity.
The member for Grayndler has spoken today and he has been making a lot of public comments about payments that he says have not been delivered, about the gap between anticipated expenditure and actual expenditure. But managing the federal budget according to construction schedules is nothing new, and the member for Grayndler knows that. Reprofiling or rephasing expenditure is nothing new. He knows that. He is either being quite deliberately mischievous or he is suffering from some form of amnesia. Labor's record in relation to this is a case in point. In the 2010-11 Commonwealth budget, Labor predicted they would spend $6.8 billion on infrastructure in 2012-13. But what did Labor actually spend on infrastructure in 2012-13? It was just $3.6 billion. So the member for Grayndler is running round the country making big and bold claims—
An opposition member interjecting—
Well, yours is a $3.2 billion black hole. The member for Grayndler knows very well that reprofiling or rephasing expenditure is nothing new, because he did it himself. There is a $3.2 billion difference between what was forecast in the Commonwealth budget in 2010-11 and what was actually spent on infrastructure in 2012-13.
In this year's budget the Turnbull-Joyce coalition government is very proud to be supporting, announcing, delivering a $9.1 billion infrastructure investment program. These are record levels, and this means thousands of projects both large and small, right across the nation. My friend and colleague the member for Bradfield, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, will talk further about some of the urban opportunities that we see, to partner state governments in, but, with regard to my particular interest, in some of the regional communities, we have seen great expenditure and great improvements—in the Bruce Highway, the Pacific Highway, funding through the Roads to Recovery program and black spots. There is a terrific amount of work going on throughout our community.
I will address the member for Whitlam's commentary as well. He was very selective in his commentary to the chamber today. He chose not to mention a little program called Roads to Recovery, which is an important program. It is one that the coalition government established many years ago, and it has survived changes of government. Over the past two years, we have seen a record investment in Roads to Recovery, higher than any year under Labor, and beyond 2019-20 it is also higher than any year under Labor. This money goes directly to local councils. Local councils appreciate this program enormously, because it allows them to set their own priorities in their own communities. It is a program which, as I said, has withstood the test of changes of government, which we cannot always say occurs in this place. It is a program that has had bipartisan support, and I expect it will continue to have that in the future.
The other program that the member also chose to ignore is the National Stronger Regions Fund. I was very surprised—
Honourable members interjecting—
I welcome the interjections, because—
An honourable member: And the characterisations!
I notice the member for Whitlam has gone very quiet, though. He has gone very quiet.
An honourable member: That is to be encouraged! That is very much to be encouraged!
I wonder if it is because he came and met with me and made a very strong case—a compelling case, in fact—for a $10 million investment in his own community. He made a very compelling case for the $10 million for the Fowlers Road to Fairwater Drive link in the seat of Whitlam.
Honourable members interjecting—
I notice he has gone quiet. He is not critical—
Order! I am having difficulty hearing the minister. I do not mind a little bit of banter, but I am having a bit of difficulty.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I do notice that the member for Whitlam has gone quiet and is not very critical of the National Stronger Regions Fund, because his electorate will benefit to the tune of $10 million under round 3. It is an excellent program which is delivering right across our nation. In fact, the government is investing more than $126 million in 67 projects across Australia under round 3. While I certainly welcome the feedback from my esteemed colleagues opposite, I think their selective quoting of figures and their selective references to government programs is giving them no credit whatsoever. Right across Australia, we are getting on with the job of delivering.
I wish to raise three issues with this contribution. One is: how is it that, during the election campaign that we have just had, the coalition committed to 78 road projects—76 of which were in coalition electorates? How does that fit with a fair analysis and distribution of funds for projects? They added up to about $800 million. Most of them were very small projects which would have been suited to local or state government, but they were clearly political commitments that were made.
Secondly, I refer to the 2016-17 budget and Budget Paper No. 1, page 538 and table 15, which goes to the projected expenditures. I note that, when it comes to rail transport, the projected expenditure for 2019-20 is a very round figure. Indeed, it is the most round figure the minister would be aware of—zero. How does the complete withdrawal of the Commonwealth from public transport projects fit with the government being so very good at turning up to those projects after their completion? Just weeks ago I was with the minister for major projects at the Redcliffe rail opening, which was funded by the federal Labor government when we were in office and the Queensland Labor government, and which received a funding cut for a portion of it back in 2014. I was there for the Regional Rail Link opening of the new stations at Tarneit and Wyndham Vale, in the electorate of Lalor, and the government was quite happy to go to that opening as well. The government, who opposed the Gold Coast Light Rail project, was happy to go to the opening of that, of course. How is it that the government, despite its change in rhetoric—and I acknowledge the difference in rhetoric between Prime Minister Turnbull and former Prime Minister Abbott—has made no change to funding of projects like the Cross River Rail, Adelaide light rail, Perth Metronet and other significant urban infrastructure projects which require Commonwealth support?
The third issue I go to is that of planning. The member for Shortland has outlined the audit office finding with regard to the East West Link. As to the Perth Freight Link, I am wondering where the minister is up to with funding of that project because in the past he has said that the whole project has to proceed, otherwise it will not be eligible for Commonwealth funding, and yet the Liberal state government has wound that back to essentially the Roe 8 project. That is a project that has previously been rejected because it goes through a wetland and does not really lead anywhere. What we need is funding of the outer harbour.
The third project is WestConnex. The minister would be aware that the scope and nature of that project has changed almost on a weekly basis. Lucy Turnbull, the person in charge of planning in Sydney and who gave an oration last night about planning in Sydney, was unaware that acquisitions were occurring in Haberfield, where whole blocks of heritage listed homes have been demolished. We have a tunnel there, but it is unclear where it is going to come out. A tunnel has begun. It is always a good idea to know where it is going to end before you start digging, but that is not the case here. How will the government ensure that planning is done right? Blackmore Oval in Leichhardt is under threat. There is a range of uncertainty when it comes to this project that is leading to legitimate community concern about this issue. How will the government ensure that in future it gets the planning done before the funding comes to make sure that we get the right outcomes?
Again, it is not my intention to delay the chamber or to take the opportunity away from the opposition to put their questions so that the minister can answer. But, if there is time available at the end, could the minister please update the chamber on local government and the benefits of the portfolio that he has in and around the increase in Roads to Recovery. In particular, my electorate has seen with four local governments increases in the federal assistance grants over a period of time and that has had an enormous effect on local governments throughout the state and the nation.
Could the minister also touch on the national bridge program and the success of that? Also, there is the sustainable regions program, where $10 million has landed in my electorate on the back of a private partnership, through council as the sponsor, and the Stronger Communities Program for the inland intermodal rail hub. Could the minister also give an update on the largest infrastructure rail project in Australia, which will come through my electorate? That is the inland rail, which again has been a priority of Infrastructure Australia.
I am very pleased to hear the minister trumpet the benefits of the Roads to Recovery Program and, in particular, the increased funds that were won by the previous Labor government for the Roads to Recovery Program. Mr Deputy Speaker, before you arrived in the chamber we negotiated an increase through fuel levies, the revenue for which was allocated to boosting the essential funds available to councils through the Roads to Recovery Program.
However, isn't it true, Minister, that the benefits that you have claimed—being the increases in the Roads to Recovery Program—have been more than offset by the cuts to financial assistance grants? I bring to your attention the situation of councils within your own state of Victoria. The City of Greater Geelong in Victoria advises that, whilst local road funding has increased marginally, the funds that are available to them through the financial assistance grants have been reduced significantly. In fact, they are close to $1 million—$974,723—worse off over the triennium. So it is indeed good news that more money is going to the Roads to Recovery Program, thanks to Labor initiatives.
Councils as a whole would have been better off had the government not put in place the financial assistance grants freeze which is affecting councils right throughout the country and particularly in the state of Victoria. Citizens in Victoria are going through the process of voting in new councillors—they are in the process of electing new councillors as we speak. And it is important to know what the Liberal-National party attitude is towards future funding arrangements as they cast their votes for Liberal, National, Labor, Greens or Independent members of parliament. It is very important that they know what the disposition and attitude is of the Liberal and National party ministers who are responsible for this portfolio.
I am also glad that the member has made a reference to the National Stronger Regions Fund. It is true that they have funded an excellent project in the seat of Whitlam, after strong representations from their local member and the local council. Regrettably, they did not make the decision in round 2, but it does prove that even the minister is not impervious to good reason and a good idea when it is presented to him. So I congratulate them on reaching the right decision, after exhausting every other alternative proposal.
It is also true that if you look at the moneys that have been allocated, particularly in rounds 1 and 2 of the National Stronger Regions Fund, of the 111 successful projects that were funded in round 2 of the National Stronger Regions Fund, $230 million worth of funds were allocated to coalition electorates and only $16 million worth of funds were allocated to Labor electorates. So I put it to the minister that there is still an enormous disparity in the allocation of funds, that this is being used as nothing more than a pork-barrelling trough—particularly for the National Party, but for both Liberal and National parties—in electorates where they are seeking to shore up support, either in those electorates or for the ministers themselves, seeking to shore up support within the cabinet and the backbench.
In the time available to me, I also want to raise questions in relation to the Stronger Communities Program funds. But I see there are 20 seconds left on the clock so I might leave the minister to answer these questions and invite my colleague to raise some questions that are available to him in his portfolio.
I would like to address a number of the matters that have been raised in this debate today, but I want to start by addressing the matter of the East West Link, which was raised by the member for Shortland.
The East West Link, of course, has become notorious as the project which caused the Andrews government to squander $1.1 billion of taxpayer's money—$1.1 billion of taxpayer's money was used not to build a road. That was $1.1 billion of taxpayer's money used by the Andrews government not to build a road!
Now, it was put by the member for Shortland—he raised questions about the cost-benefit ratio in relation to the project. I want to make the point that in November a business case was provided to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development which identified a cost-benefit ratio of 1.4, with wider economic benefits for this project. I am also advised that Infrastructure Australia assessed the East West Link last year and arrived at a cost-benefit ratio of around 1.2. So there is a clear benefit to this project.
And why is it necessary? Why is the East West Link necessary? The existing road network across the north of Melbourne is under pressure. By 2031 there will be some 400,000 vehicles travelling east-west across Melbourne. Melbourne has no direct cross-city connection as an alternative to the M1. The Westgate Bridge is heavily congested, carrying an unsustainable 200,000 vehicles a day. The east-west freeway is the last of the major urban freeways that ends abruptly on the edge of the city, creating a major congestion bottleneck and affecting productivity. Liveability in Melbourne's inner north and west is affected by through traffic, and tram and bus services have their reliability challenged because of the time given to east-west traffic on suburban roads. These are the challenges with the existing traffic needs in Melbourne that East West Link was designed to support.
It is interesting actually to go back and see what prominent Labor figures had to say about East West Link when the original recommendation was made by Rod Eddington. Bill Shorten had this to say:
There are chronic problems in the western suburbs and I'm keen to see it get better connected. It's good that Kelvin—
that is Kelvin Thomson—
is pushing his case but there is a shortage of east-west links. I think that Eddington report is a good one.
Of course that was the Eddington report, which recommended the East West Link. Indeed then Labor members, Julia Gillard and Nicola Roxon together with the current member for Maribyrnong and others, had this to say in July 2008 in a joint submission on the Eddington East West Link needs assessment:
As part of an integrated transport solution, the four WSMPS—
that is the acronym for the four Labor members including the current Leader of the Opposition—
support a cross-city road link from the western suburbs to the Eastern Freeway.
I will just say that again for the benefit of the House. This is the wisdom contained in a submission, in what seems to me to be a very sound submission, put by Julia Gillard, Nicola Roxon and, amongst others, the present Leader of the Opposition:
As part of an integrated transport solution, the four WSMPS—
in other words, the four Labor MPs—
support a cross-city road link from the western suburbs to the Eastern Freeway.
That of course is the project that became East West Link. Due to the desire of the Victorian Labor Party to hold onto a couple of inner city seats, well advanced plans for the East West Link were abandoned. In fact better than well advanced, there had been contracts signed. Shockingly, those contracts were torn up by the incoming Andrews Labor government and some $1.1 billion of Victorian taxpayers' money was squandered as a result—$1.1 billion to not build a road. That is a very disappointing approach to infrastructure. So I am very pleased to have the chance to respond to the member for Shortland on that particular issue.
I wish to raise issues of aviation and also of the Australian Rail Track Corporation. As the minister would be aware, Airservices Australia is largely funded by revenue from industry by charging airlines and aircraft operators for use of its en route terminal navigation and for its aviation rescue and firefighting services. The level of charges is based upon five-year forecasts prepared by Airservices on what it believes the activity levels will be. Airservices Australia does have its own board, of course, but the minister oversees and indeed recommends the appointment of that board.
Airservices Australia has announced a restructure program called Accelerate. Under that program, it is proposing to eliminate 900 jobs across the organisation. One in five people are being essentially eliminated from the workforce. More than 500 positions have been already gone and other staff are being moved to individual contracts.
From time to time, organisations should look to make efficiencies, but I seek an assurance from the minister that he is satisfied that the number of redundancies, which are particularly large at Airservices, will not have an impact on the fundamental job of Airservices, which is to look after aviation safety. Is the minister confident that Airservices have undertaken a proper risk management analysis of the impact of these significant cuts? Included in this, particularly, is an issue that the minister knows I raised with him personally after he took over the portfolio. The issue of the closure of firefighting services at some regional airports is certainly of concern to me because of the role that those firefighting services play not just at the airport but as an important part of the emergency services response in some of those regional communities. I ask the minister to rule out, essentially, the closure of these firefighting services.
Something else that concerns me when I see an organisation making such drastic cuts is whether it is being set up for privatisation. I ask the minister to rule out any proposal to privatise Airservices Australia—a proposal which is being supported by some in the commentariat who I think are not aware of the important role of Airservices Australia. If you move to a for-profit system with something like Airservices then you change the nature of the organisation, by its very definition, because it would be looking at different criteria. Essentially, it would be looking at producing a return, which I would find quite reprehensible and which we on this side of the chamber would not consider.
While he is at it, the minister might like also to rule out privatisation of the Australian Rail Track Corporation, which was considered in the last term of government. The ARTC, of course, provides the track, and then you have competition and private sector input on top of that. Where privatisation of rail services has occurred in places like the UK, there have been disastrous consequences for ongoing maintenance and provision. The ARTC is something that has enjoyed bipartisan support as a public entity, and I ask the minister to confirm that that is his — (Time expired)
I want to raise a few matters. I want to continue on East West Link, as the minister commented on it. Minister Fletcher, in a February 2016 interview regarding the Victorian request for support for Melbourne Metro—a most excellent project—is quoted as saying:
And of course what now needs to happen is the Commonwealth Government will have Infrastructure Australia study the business case carefully. We’re not in the business, unsurprisingly, of handing over a check for $4.5 billion just because we’re asked for it.
Given that the ANAO found that that is exactly what this government did regarding East West Link—handing over a cheque for $1½ billion dollars before an Infrastructure Australia assessment had been conducted—why do you say that this government is not in the business of writing cheques?
My second issue returns to the subject of the smaller projects that the member for Grayndler highlighted before: the coalition's election commitments around road projects, which was pork-barrelling at its very worst. I am sure that will be the subject of an ANAO audit in due course. The government committed $858 million to 78 road projects, 76 of which were in coalition held electorates—76 out of 78. There was not a single public transport project, yet again demonstrating this government's commitment to public transport. So I have a question for the minister: what does he say to the 40 per cent of Australia's population who do not live in those electorates? Are they not worthy of improved road funding?
One of the most interesting projects funded under that was one million dollars for upgrading a road mainly used for billycart races—that is right, Mr Deputy Speaker. They spent a million dollars on a road whose most notable claim to fame is to be used for billycart races. And this stands in stark contrast to this government's continuing failure to fund the most important project in the entire Hunter region, which is the Glendale transport interchange. This project has been identified by all 11 Hunter councils as the most important project, and Minister Chester would know that getting 11 councils to agree on anything is a remarkable achievement.
All 11 Hunter councils have said that the Glendale transport interchange is the most important project in the region. Labor, in government, funded it to the tune of $13 million. The Abbott-Turnbull government cut a million dollars from it and is refusing to play any part in funding the remaining $32 million required to get the project completed.
Labor, I am proud to say, under the shadow minister, committed another $13 million during the election campaign, and this is a no-brainer. Independent economic modelling has shown that this $32 million will drive a billion dollars in private sector construction activity. It will create 10,000 jobs. It will drive $780 million in regional income. It will lead to 5,000 dwellings being built in the Glendale area, driving another 1,000 full-time jobs.
This independent modelling has found that this project, for every dollar of public sector investment, will drive $38 of private sector investment—not 45c as the East West Link; $38. I ask the ministers that table: why will they not commit to the most important project in the entire Hunter region?
My third area is this government's addiction to spin and propaganda. It was revealed before the last election that $18 million was spent in propaganda ads bragging about its record—a false record, might I add, because they have not done much on infrastructure but they spent $18 million bragging about it. That $18 million, we confirmed, came out of the infrastructure budget. So they spent $18 million less on building bridges and roads to brag about building bridges and roads.
What is even worse is we also found out the former minister, Minister Truss, spent $3,200 in one year alone on props for media events—easels, A1 maps and other things for media events.
Does Jamie Briggs count as one?
He is certainly a prop—and $2,000 on hard hats and high visibility vests. Let me repeat that: Minister Truss spent $2,000 on hard hats and high-visibility vests. At every road project I have been to, they are generally okay with giving you a hard hat and a high-visibility vest.
So my final question to the two ministers—and they will probably need to take it on notice—is: can Minister Chester and Minister Fletcher outline how much the department has spent on props for media announcements, how much less spent on hard hats and how much less spent on high-visibility vests? If they could come back when they have got that answer, that would be great.
You will probably not be surprised to hear that I will deal with the more substantive questions from the member for Grayndler in relation to Airservices Australia, and I certainly welcome his questions in relation to Airservices. As he correctly pointed out, it is a very important body and the safety of our aviation arrangements here in Australia are chaired by an eminent Australian, Sir Angus Houston.
The member is right to indicate that there is a restructure program underway at the moment known as the Accelerate program and the reduction of the workforce in the order of 900 jobs. I want to assure the member for Grayndler that I have also sought and received assurances that none of the positions to be made redundant under the Accelerate program would impact on aviation safety. I appreciate the question and assure the member that, in the same spirit of that question, the government has no plans to privatise Airservices Australia.
I can say that Airservices is continuing to advise me and consult with its staff on the rollout of the program and I expect to be kept closely informed on the progress of that through the Airservices board. I meet quite regularly with the board and the chief executive. Airservices has been quick to indicate—and I appreciate those assurances—that, obviously, safety remains the highest priority in delivery of its services.
I would also like to refer to the member for Grayndler's questions in relation to the aviation—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
I will get to that in a moment, thanks, member for Grayndler—rescue and firefighting services. I welcome the very constructive manner in which the member has raised these questions not only today but in the past, and he has raised some concerns with me privately. The government has no plans to close the aviation rescue and firefighting services that currently operate at regional airports. The government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review asked the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development for policy advice on a range of potential improvements to the regulation of the ARFFs. The government is considering the advice from the department on the outcomes of that review and I undertake to keep the House and the member fully informed, as any final decisions about the acquirement of ARFFs at regional airports will be made, quite appropriately, by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
The member referred to the Australian Rail Track Corporation, the ARTC. It was made clear in this year's budget, and I can assure the member again here today, that the ARTC is our preferred delivery model for the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project and that there are no plans to privatise ARTC. In the context of this year's budget I think it is important to note that $594 million was put forward in this year's budget for the next stage of the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project. I know it is a project that many members opposite and on this side of the House have a great deal of interest in. It is regarded, quite rightly, as a project of extraordinary national importance. The total commitment from the Commonwealth at this stage is in the order of $894 million. We are fully aware of the fact that that does not build you the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail. That gets you through the foundation stages. There is a market testing process underway. There are a whole range of preliminary works underway.
I was in Warwick just last week, where I met with state members of parliament, local federal members of parliament and local council. It is fair to say that there is a heightened level of interest in that community about the proposed alignments from the New South Wales border, through the Warwick area, to Toowoomba and down to Brisbane. I would put to the chamber that the heightened level of community interest reflects the fact that the community now believes that the government is going to get on with the job of actually delivering Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail. It is a project that has been talked about for decades, and we are now getting close to the pointy end of the conversation about what the final alignment will look like and how we are going to deliver maximum benefit to communities along that route.
Again, I assure those opposite—and I would like to assure the member for Wright, who asked the question of me earlier about the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail—that we are working in a very constructive way with the ARTC and with the Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian governments, in terms of reaching agreement on memorandums of understanding on how we can work together to deliver this project. It is one that is of great national importance, and I certainly look forward to having bipartisan support for a project which I think will deliver enormous benefits to not just regional Australia but the whole nation. If we are ever going to capitalise on the benefits of the three free trade agreements which were negotiated under the previous trade minister, Andrew Robb, we are going to need to make sure we get our national freight arrangements working in a way which minimises cost to producers right across regional Australia. I thank the member for his questions.
On Inland Rail, which the minister has just raised, of course there had already been $600 million in round figures expended on Inland Rail on the existing parts of the north-south corridor that will form part of the Inland Rail line. In our previous, Labor government budgets, $300 million was contributed for planning and updated work. I was pleased that in this year's budget there was the first dollar that had ever been added by a coalition government for that project. I do note that it took until the third budget was brought down by the coalition before a single dollar was put into the Inland Rail project. It is good that it be gotten on with.
I think there is no doubt that that has to be seen as a regional economic development project, not just a transport project. A city such as Parkes will be very much transformed, sitting, as it does, not just on the north-south corridor but on the east-west corridor as well. I do believe that is an important project where construction needs to be gotten on with in this term, otherwise people are going to be somewhat frustrated by the slow way in which the government proceeded in the period before the current minister was in that job.
I also want to raise the issue of cuts to Infrastructure Australia's actual budget. If you look to the forward estimates, Infrastructure Australia's funding is cut by 25 per cent next year and the following two years. I am concerned that this is happening at a time when the government says that it is going to take Infrastructure Australia seriously. That is not the way to do it. Funding is not just an indication, but I am somewhat concerned that the minister's press release last Monday spoke about 'new' projects on the Infrastructure Australia list when, frankly, they were all old. That is not a criticism of the minister, but there is some concern that Infrastructure Australia think that the M80 is somehow a new project. That is quite bizarre, frankly. There is also the ARTC work on the east-west corridor across South Australia—the funding of which had already been announced or re-announced by the government. It was actually funded as part of the former government's funding package.
It is of some concern that the process seems to have been reversed, in that Infrastructure Australia now seem to make announcements of things that have already been funded or announced by either this government or, in some cases, the previous government based upon assessments that had already been made. For example, Infrastructure Australia also had recommended Cross River Rail as the No. 1 project in its 2012 priority list, when in 2016 Brisbane's public transport network—which will not only impact Brisbane but also the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast—reaches complete capacity with just the one crossing at Maryvale Bridge within five years, best case scenario, and the government's position is that it is still waiting on processes. This is a project that was signed off by the Commonwealth and the Queensland government's in 2013 following the Infrastructure Australia recommendations. The longer the delay, the less economic growth and productivity growth from projects like that. The government should be getting on with it.
I would also ask the minister: how is the Commonwealth having an impact on the oversight of the planning work on the WestConnex project? I accept that some of the changes will make it better, but how is the Commonwealth keeping an oversight given the changes that keep occurring, many of which are creating considerable— (Time expired)
I want to address a number of matters that have been raised by members today. The member for Scullin raised questions about the funding that is available to the state of Victoria. I want to make the point that the Turnbull government has made it clear that there remains $3 billion of funding available to any Victorian government which chooses to proceed with the East West Link. When you add up the total funding commitments available from the Commonwealth government to the Victorian government, including that $3 billion, the proportion of funding going to Victoria sits at 21 per cent of the Commonwealth's infrastructure investment over this period.
I also want to make the point that earlier this year the Commonwealth announced a $1.5 billion Victorian infrastructure commitment. There is $500 million towards to a billion dollar upgrade of the Monash Freeway in Melbourne; $350 million to complete the upgrade of the M80 Ring Road in Melbourne; and $345 million for a Victorian rural and regional roads package. There is $220 million for the Murray Basin Rail Project, to transform a series of existing broad-gauge lines into standard gauge lines, to bring some lines back into service and particularly to facilitate the movement of produce from northern and western Victoria to ports and to export markets. There is $75 billion for an urban congestion package. We have also offered a commitment of money towards planning works on Melbourne Metro.
So in fact the Turnbull government has provided very substantial funding and we stand ready, as I have indicated, to provide additional funding should the Victorian government choose to proceed with the East West Link project. Certainly the elements of the funding package which we announced in April this year are very significant. For example, in relation to the Monash Freeway we have committed to investigating an extension of the widening of the Monash Freeway westwards towards Warrigal Road and eastwards towards Cardinia Road. That would build on work already underway and would deliver a very significant benefit to commuters in the south-eastern areas of Melbourne.
As the member for Scullin has rightly said, Melbourne is a very rapidly growing city and it is important that we upgrade transport infrastructure to assist people to move around the city efficiently. That is important from an economic efficiency and productivity perspective; it is also important from a livability perspective. We do need to recognise that one of Australia's great strengths is the livability that our citizens enjoy, including the citizens in our major cities. We need to make sure that our transport infrastructure planning addresses the continuation of that livability. That is certainly an important priority.
I would like to come to the comments made by the member for Grayndler in relation to investment in rail. I remind the House of the very extensive range of projects to which the Turnbull government has provided funding support in the rail space. There is $490 million going to the Forrestfield rail project, which is in Perth. That will better connect the Perth CBD to Perth Airport and to the suburbs surrounding the airport. There was $150 million announced for the Townsville Eastern Access Rail Corridor. There is $43 million for Flinders Link, which will enable the Flinders Medical Centre on the Flinders University campus to be connected for the first time to the Adelaide metropolitan rail network. Of course, there is a $1.7 billion commitment under the asset recycling initiative to the Sydney Metro project. We have put on the table $857 million towards a Melbourne Metro project. I have mentioned the $220 million for the Murray Basin rail, so there are very significant rail funding commitments.
I thank the minister for responding to some of the issues and questions that I raised, but I note that I invited the minister to rule out a further freeze—an extension of the existing freeze—on financial assistance grants to local councils. That has not yet occurred.
I turn now to shipping policy and I note that the coalition did not release a shipping policy during the recent election. In fact, the department told estimates on Monday that it had identified no new commitments on shipping from the coalition. The portfolio budget statement for 2016-17 says at page 35 that this year the department will have a target to 'amend regulations to deregulate port service providers and ships undertaking interstate voyages'. Minister, does this mean that the government intends to take the same approach to shipping in this parliament that it took in the previous parliament?
At estimates earlier this week we were told:
The minister has reconfirmed that he wants to introduce legislation into the parliament that will create a competitive and efficient shipping industry that forms part of Australia's national transport network. He has also emphasised the need to provide certainty to that industry.
Minister, are those your sole objectives? Does the minister see that Australia has a national interest in fostering and developing Australian maritime capacity and skills? Will the minister join with Labor in committing to including an objective to foster Australian shipping businesses and skills capacity—that is, Australian maritime capacity and jobs?
Finally, Minister, I will ask some questions concerning the very popular Stronger Communities Program fund—a $45 million-fund that was established in the 2015-16 budget. It is so popular, indeed, that during the last election campaign we had the Prime Minister running around the country, announcing and opening projects which were funded out of this fund. I want to ask the minister whether he can commit to continuation of this fund, as no commitments have been made and no budget allocations have been guaranteed to date. So, can the minister commit and guarantee that this fund will continue?
We have also been advised that there was an underspend and underallocation of the moneys that were available in round 1 of this fund for individual electorates around the country. Can the minister advise the House what happened to that underspend and where it was reallocated? Can the minister also advised the House whether there was an underspend in round 2 of the program? And, if so, what has happened to the moneys that were underspent in round 2 of the program? Can the minister also advise that House of what process was put in place by the ministers office in relation to the approval of projects in round 2, which I note occurred during the caretaker period and that this is an unusual course of events?
I also ask a question in relation to road deaths in Australia. This is a very serious subject, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure you would agree with this. Given that road deaths so far in 2016 are almost eight per cent higher than for the same period last year, why is the government cutting funding for the road safety program by over 20 per cent from $24 million to $18.8 million from next year?
I know that this is a matter that is of deep interest to the member for Scullin, and he has spoken to me about this on a number of occasions. I know that the people in his electorate and, in fact, right throughout Melbourne and Victoria are very concerned about that. He has raised with me the question that this is not the right time to make $4 million worth of annual cuts to training for learner drivers in the keys2drive program. So, we ask the minister: isn't road safety a priority for this government and for his ministry?
I will undertake both on behalf of myself and the Minister for Urban Infrastructure to get back to the members on the more substantive questions. Perhaps some of the more politically related rhetoric may not get the answer the members were seeking, but certainly on the substantive questions we will get back to them and provide them with some information.
I will just indicate in relation to the road safety questions, that I would certainly be happy to meet with the member and discuss the whole range of activities which are currently underway in relation to the state jurisdictions. I understand the member for North Sydney has a couple of comments he would like to make as well.
One of the issues that faces my electorate, which has one of the highest usages of public transport in Australia, is the critical congestion that is occurring on the North Shore line in Sydney. At various stations we are almost reaching displacement point because of the level of demand.
I am interested in the Minister for Urban Infrastructure advising the House on what the funding commitment is that this government is making to the Sydney Metro project and what benefits that will bring for the North Shore of Sydney.
In the brief time available, can I confirm that there is a $1.7 billion commitment to the Sydney Metro project. Of course, that will be a metro-style, turn-up-and-go service that will run from Rouse Hill in the north-west of Sydney to Chatswood, then down through the lower North Shore, across the harbour to Barangaroo and Martin Place, and then connect with the line going to Bankstown. That will offer additional, high-quality rail capacity. It will be a transformative, very exciting project. It will be very significant, in my view, for the member's electorate, and it will also deliver benefits more broadly.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, I appreciate receiving the call. Elevating the status of women is both a test of our national character and a building block for national prosperity. Australian women continue to face barriers to full, fair and equal access to economic opportunities in the workforce, in their lifetime earnings and in their retirement savings. The latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that Australian women are currently earning 17.3 per cent less than men, earning on average $277.70 per week less than men. This gap has barely moved for more than over two decades. Westpac has put the dollar cost of this gender pay gap at $123.4 billion per year. Australian women's earnings peak on average at age 31 when average full-time earnings are about $75,000. By contrast, men's earnings peak closer to age 40 when average earnings have climbed to $91,000.
The percentage of Australian women in full-time paid work is roughly half that of men and has improved by just six percentage points in the past 40 years. It is still the case that only 36.5 per cent of women are in paid full-time work. The underemployment rate for women aged 35 to 44 is more than double the rate for men the same age. Around 14.6 per cent of women in this age group want to work more hours but cannot get them. These facts help to explain why Australian women have an average of $90,000 less in superannuation when they retire and why older women represent one of the fastest-growing cohorts experiencing homelessness. I met one of those women myself last weekend—a woman who was working who could not get enough hours. She was 50, she was divorced and she was couch surfing. It was an absolute shame in a rich country like ours.
The Grattan Institute estimates that, if Australia had the same female workforce participation rate as Canada, Australia's GDP would be about $25 billion higher. The G20 has acknowledged that one of the world's most significant barriers to global economic growth is the persistently low level of women's participation in the workforce compared with men. While hosting the G20 conference in my home town of Brisbane in 2014, this government committed to the G20 target to reduce the gap between women and men's workforce participation rates by 25 per cent by 2025. Accordingly, I ask the minister to respond to some questions about how we are going to meet this gender participation target. To do so, it should be noted that we need to create an additional 300,000 jobs for women.
So I ask the minister: is the government on track to reach the G20 women's workforce participation target? Which agencies are tracking progress toward this target? What arrangements have been put in place to report on this progress to government, parliament and the wider community? What specific steps has the government taken to advance this goal? Why has the government delayed proposed reforms to childcare arrangements which disproportionately benefit women seeking to enter or re-enter the paid workforce?
The government has pitched parts of its superannuation package, particularly the catch-up concessional contributions measure, as helping women achieve a more secure retirement. What evidence or analysis does the government have that women will be the primary beneficiaries of this measure and not well-off men? Is it correct that Treasury has not actually conducted this analysis and has no idea if this will improve lifetime superannuation savings for the majority of women? How many women represented the coalition parties in the 44th Parliament? How many women do so in the 45th Parliament? Could the minister explain how having the lowest number of women sitting on the government benches since 1993—the year that I was in grade 11 at high school—demonstrates a commitment to advancing the participation of women in the economic, social and political life of this country? Thank you very much for the opportunity.
Thank you for the question. You raise an obviously very important point about women's participation in the workforce and, more broadly, about our policy in this area. It is an issue close to my heart because I have encouraged my wife to continue working throughout my career and hers. She continues to work to this day, and that has been a wonderful thing for both of us. So, for me, this is a very real issue. It is a very practical issue, and it is one that I have been passionate about for a long while.
Under Australia's G20 presidency, as the member pointed out, leaders agreed to a goal of reducing the gender gap in participation rates by 25 per cent by 2025. That means, as you pointed out, an additional 200,000 women in the Australian labour force. Analysis by Goldman Sachs estimates that closing the gap in participation rates could boost Australia's GDP by about 13 per cent. So this is a very real issue and, for the younger generation of Australians coming through now, I think this is one that we face as a practical issue every day. The government is taking action to boost women's workforce participation. It was a very broad-ranging question, so I will seek to cover off on the key points here.
Firstly, we are doing it by designing an affordable, accessible and flexible childcare system through the Jobs for Families Child Care Package. That is a very important reform. It is one that we have spent a lot of time on and done a lot of work on to make sure we structure it in a way that is actually going to provide that encouragement for participation rates that we know is not just good for women—obviously, that is absolutely paramount—but good for everybody, because it strengthens the economy. We know the advantage that brings. It brings more tax. It brings more ability to provide services—and we all benefit from that. So there are the direct benefits and there are the indirect benefits from that package.
Secondly, we are doing it by supporting business to do its part in creating a more diverse workplace. We have developed the Supporting Working Parents website in 2015, which provides practical resources for employees and employers on how best to manage and support working parents through pregnancy, through parental leave and upon return to work after parental leave. Of course, so many of us have now experienced the challenges of that. I have—in fact, four times over—and each time we battled our way through it. But it is a battle, and it is very important that the government provide that sort of support.
Thirdly, we are doing it by investing $13 million to encourage more women to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We know that not only is that focus on STEM important more, generally, across the economy but also we have a challenge with getting enough young women into education in that area, into the universities focusing on STEM and into STEM related industries.
Fourthly, we are doing it by shining a light on pay equity through the work of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, which assists businesses to address pay equity concerns, including by assisting with gender pay gap audits, providing pay equity toolkits and running awareness campaigns on this very important issue. To add a couple of other points, we are doing it by demonstrating best practice in the Australian Public Service through the APS gender equality strategy and, finally, by announcing a $10 million expansion of the UnitingCare pre-employment project aimed at women—again, another important initiative that the government is pursuing.
Any further issues on this I will direct to the relevant department. It is worth mentioning, though, that, as part of the Women's Leadership and Development Strategy, the government is increasing women's workforce participation by partnering with UnitingCare Australia. We are providing $180,000 for a demonstration project to create long-term employment pathways for women in the community in the aged-care sector which, as we know, has been a sector that has been dominated by women employees. Also, through the Australian Women in Resource Alliance, we are providing just under $500,000 to support the attraction and retention of women in the resources industry through an e-mentoring program.
This has been a real focus for the government. It is an area that has great benefits for Australian women, and for all Australians more generally, through the economic boost that we get from it. It is one that this government will continue to pursue.
I want to take the opportunity to raise the issue of cities. Of course, I am somewhat concerned that whilst the new Prime Minister has said that he is concerned about the urban agenda and cities, he has in fact downgraded the role to the role of a parliamentary secretary and has not reversed any of the significant changes that were made by the Abbott government. Tony Abbott, as Prime Minister, explicitly said there was no role for the Commonwealth in our cities. The Major Cities Unit remains disbanded, as does the Urban Policy Forum. Infrastructure Australia has been marginalised, and the State of Australian Cities reports have failed to be produced under this government.
Indeed, when you look at cities policy, urban congestion and support for public transport needs to be at the forefront. The budget papers show that in 2019-20—that is, the last year of the forward estimates—public transport funding and funding for rail transport will fall to a very round number that the assistant minister should be able to remember, because it is zero. Not a single dollar is allocated in 2019-20 for public transport by this government. That is because the public transport projects that were funded by the previous government—like the Redcliffe rail line, Gold Coast Light Rail, and the Regional Rail Link in Victoria—have of course all been opened, same as the Noarlunga to Seaford line in Adelaide and the Perth City Link. That is of considerable concern.
I am also concerned about the government's support for what it calls City Deals, which really look to me as though they are just matching Labor government commitments. Certainly, in Townsville and in Launceston, that is all it did, including the former member for Herbert—it might explain why he is the former member for Herbert. It held out and opposed the funding of the Townsville stadium, which would be a part of revitalising Townsville as a city. The government belatedly matched that, missed out on the euphoria of the Cowboys' win in last year's grand final and could not even pick up on the importance of that for that city.
In Tasmania it simply matched the funding for the University of Tasmania that had been announced many months before by Labor. I would be interested in which councils will be involved in the proposed City Deal for Western Sydney. A City Deal is supposed to encourage economic growth across a region. What is the actual budget for City Deals beyond that which have been announced in the guise of City Deals by this government across the forward estimates? If it is going to be real—certainly, I think there is some prospect of some success here—it needs to be more than a political exercise, matching Labor's funding commitments.
Finally, I would ask: why is it that the Australian government is not participating in Habitat III, which is taking place as we speak in Quito in Ecuador? This is a once-in-20-years conference that is as significant as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change or other major conferences. The UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development is critical. The new urban agenda was proposed as part of the Paris conference that the Australian government participated in. This is a very significant conference indeed. There are 50,000 participants in this conference—governments from all around the world acknowledging that how cities function will be critical to sustainability and dealing with the challenge of climate change. The Australian government has chosen not to be represented at this conference. I just wonder if there is a reason?
As the minister well knows, my electorate of Bennelong has the innovation district of Macquarie Park, a hub of excellence for information technology and new business. Can the minister tell me how 2016 budget recent announcements will make it easier for these businesses to engage with government and deliver better services more efficiently through digitisation transformation of the government sector?
To revisit the question that I have just asked the assistant minister, the question really was about a range of issues in respect to women's workforce participation. It is important to revisit one of those questions. The minister did go to the question of early learning, education and care in his answer but he did not answer the question that I actually asked, which was: why has the government delayed those childcare reforms to 2018? If the economic benefits of them are so clear and so important, and certainly improving access to affordable and high quality early learning is important, why has the government delayed those reforms to 2018? Related to the question is this question: if it is the fact that not having child care is an obstacle to getting back into the workforce then why make it more difficult for jobseekers to have child care while they are looking for a job so that they can get back into the workforce? In other words, you will be aware that there has been some criticism of the design of the package in terms of the activities that people will have to be undertaking to be eligible for the package. Obviously writing resumes, knocking on doors, writing letters, getting in touch with prospective employers takes as much time and energy as being at work so you need to have your kids in care if you want to be able to do that so why would the government not design a package with a view to jobseekers as well as to people who have already got the benefit of participating in the workforce?
I also wanted to go to some related issues about the broader question of gender equality in this country. Gender equality, as I made clear in my previous question, is important for women and it is also important for our economy. It is really important that we have strong leadership from parliamentarians, from governments and from alternative governments in relation to gender equality in this country. That is why we on this side went to the last election with a really strong suite of policies to improve the status of women, to reduce discrimination against women and to reduce barriers to women's full participation in the economic, social and cultural life of this country.
The government, on the other hand, had a policy about surf lifesavers, about truck drivers but did not have a women's policy. The government did not have a women's policy as it went into the federal election. It is a bit of a surprise that there was no women's policy. We did have a marathon campaign. It seemed like a long time to me. You would think that there would have been time in that eight-week campaign period to announce a women's policy. I suspect that the minister would agree with me when I say that demonstration matters, role modelling matters. The minister spoke about a demonstration project that is being done with Uniting Care, but I am sure that the minister would agree with me that demonstration through the leadership of the nation is also important.
I want to ask the minister: are reports that an EL1 level staff member within the Office for Women is eligible for a salary that is $10,000 lower than an equivalent staff member within the general social policy division of PM&C? Are those reports correct? Is this pay differential replicated at any other employment band within the department? This matter first came to light in September this year and I would like to ask the minister: what steps has the Prime Minister or anyone within his department taken to address the pay disparity? If it was the case, is it still the case that an EL1 staff member within the Office for Women receives less pay than an equivalent staff member elsewhere within PM&C?
I also want to take the minister to the question of family violence prevention. It is an issue that I was intending to ask the Attorney-General's representative about last night but unfortunately was denied the opportunity. Specifically, the Prime Minister last year in September announced a women's safety package. We discovered earlier this week that for one of the initiatives, under that package for $12 million, that only $180,000 of that $12 million had actually been spent in the more than a year that has passed since then.
A new package is to be announced next week. It was confirmed at the national summit. Of that new package, the Attorney-General says $30 million will be going to legal assistance in family violence. Is the minister able to shed any light on how that $30 million will be allocated, and what the process will be for allocation? Will we see another example of what happened with the health justice partnerships last year, which was that the Attorney-General just seemed to choose a few without consulting anyone or going through any sort of rigorous process and announcing them by press release rather than through consultation with the sector? What does the government intend to do in relation to domestic and family violence leave for government employees?
I thank the member for Griffith for her question, the member for Grayndler for this question and also the member for Bennelong for his question. I have to say that I counted 15 questions from the member for Griffith, about 10 from the member for Grayndler and another one from the member for Bennelong. Let me work progressively through those.
I will start with the member for Bennelong's question, which related to his electorate of Bennelong and the innovation district, Macquarie Park, which I was delighted to visit only a couple of weeks ago. It is truly one of the emerging innovation districts in this country which offers phenomenal potential. As the minister for cities, it is really wonderful to see the work that is going on there.
An innovation district is something that is extremely important to the future of this country. The reality is that we are seeing all around the world countries gaining enormous competitive advantage from the development of these districts, which have certain very clear characteristics. One of those characteristics is public transport—and I do want to come back to the question from the member for Grayndler about public transport; the truth is we are investing enormous amounts into public transport at the moment. But you also have to see mixed use—this is residential, commercial and even light industrial work; and that is absolutely what we are seeing in Macquarie Park—and clusters of small prosperous businesses. This is something that the coalition understands, I think, far better than those opposite: if you do not get those clusters of growing businesses, you do not get successful innovation districts. All of that we are seeing in Macquarie Park, and it truly is one of the great illustrations of what is possible in this country. It has a long way to go, and I think everyone who is in that area knows it has a long way to go.
The member's specific question was about the digital transformation of government, and this is something I have been passionate about for many years and wrote about well before I came into the current role, because every government in this era needs to be able to spend and deliver more with less. That is true across the Western world. We all face tough fiscal constraints. Many of those opposite imagine that there is a money tree somewhere from which you can get lots of money and spend it on whatever is your latest pet program. However, the reality of the modern era is that is simply not possible.
One way that we can spend our money more effectively is through the better use of information technology. Not only that; we can get better outcomes. Again and again, we have seen modelling in the private sector of how this is made possible. In government, we have a very strong focus on how digitisation can actually deliver benefits. We know Deloitte's have told us that there is a couple of billion dollars per annum up for grabs just in efficiency gains—and that does not even extend to other significant benefits in compliance, better policy and better outcomes. Of course in my area of responsibility, the now Digital Transformation Office is absolutely focused on that prize, that opportunity. Only last week, I was delighted to announce further changes: a strengthening of that agency and a further strengthening of its focus on that digital opportunity that I have outlined.
We are making good progress in particular areas, and one of the things we have seen is that relatively modest changes can have very big impacts. One of the examples that I am particularly proud of is that we recently invested $5.4 million into the next generation of the program to improve the myGov service, which included 18 short-term fixes. A team comprising the Department of Human Services and what is now the Digital Transformation Agency came up with 18 short-term fixes and immediately implemented the highest impacting of those fixes. Anyone who used myGov in the past will know that there was real frustration with it. However, since these changes we have seen a doubling of the number of people using the service on a month-to-month basis, a doubling of the number of people using the service during this year's tax period, a halving in the number of people who had trouble logging on, a 37 per cent fall in forgotten usernames, a 53 per cent fall in incorrect security codes and a 54 per cent decrease in password resets. These are practical changes that are having a big impact, resulting in a more effective government service, with benefits for the government and benefits for citizens.
Before I call the member for Griffith, I remind her that at 12.15 we will be moving to Indigenous affairs. So, if she expects an answer to her question, she might like to truncate her contribution. I call the member for Griffith.
I will ask for a third time: why has the child care package been delayed to 2018? For the second time: is there still a pay disparity between the Office for Women and the general Social Policy Division of the PM&C? For the first time: thank you for talking about the Digital Transformation Agenda. Has the Digital Transformation Agency or the Public Data Branch been consulted about the sale or otherwise commercialisation of the ASIC registry?
I am delighted to be here today as we are considering the Prime Minister and Cabinet's budget allocations, particularly in relation to cities. I think that is very important, particularly as someone who represents one of the most densely populated parts of Australia. Australia is, as we know, one of the most urbanised countries in the world. I think our cities overall remain extraordinarily successful places to live as part of our economic prosperity. We know that we have some of the most liveable cities in the country. We also know that an increasing proportion of Australia's GDP, particularly as we move to a service economy, is being generated by our cities, including our CBDs. For any government that is interested in productivity growth and our economic prosperity, it is pleasing to see the focus that we currently have on our cities. I think it is fair to say that we have in our Prime Minister and in the Turnbull household two of Australia's leading experts on the future of our cities, and it is therefore not surprising that this is receiving the focus that it is.
It stands in sharp contrast to the approach of the former Labor government, which spoke big on cities but really was all about new committees and reports. Under this government, I am pleased that we are seeing really tangible and exciting ideas, with the Commonwealth working with other levels of government to try and overcome some of the problems that beset our cities, particularly in making sure that our transport infrastructure is up to scratch and in supporting people's lifestyles but also, just as importantly, in addressing the role of transport in the productivity of our cities and in making sure that our planning policies are right, and so on.
Minister, I wanted to specifically ask what the government is doing to plan for our cities' growth in the future but also how the budget invests in the Commonwealth's capacity to partner with other tiers of government to ensure our cities succeed and, with them, the national economy.
I thank the member for North Sydney for that question and the member for Griffith for another round of her questions. I will very quickly hit one of her persistent questions about the Jobs for Families Child Care Package. We remain committed to the implementation of that package, of course. Bills covering those elements of the package that require legislative changes, and the family tax benefit reforms needed to fund the package, were introduced on 1 September 2016. We delayed implementation of those parts of the package that require legislative changes and significant additional investment by a year, until July 2018, because the relevant bills were not passed by the previous parliament. But those elements that are not tied to the passage of legislation are commencing as planned. I will not go through all of those, in the interests of time.
I do want to come back to the series of questions relating to cities from the member for Grayndler and the member for North Sydney. I am working through the 25 or so questions that I have received as best I can and will take the ones that I cannot get through on notice. I want to make a couple of comments on cities. We are obviously very committed to the cities policy. It has not been downgraded; it has been put into the Prime Minister's portfolio, and that is a very important move. Within it and the infrastructure budget is very significant investment in public transport, including $43 million to the Flinders Link, $95 million to Gold Coast light rail, $595 million to the Moreton Bay rail link and so on. I will not go through all of those.
Order! It is now 12.15. Any unresolved questions from the member for North Sydney or the member for Griffith can be put in writing to the assistant minister. The Federation Chamber will now consider the Indigenous affairs segment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.
In July 2016 the ABC's Four Corners program screened footage of children in detention at Don Dale correctional facility in the Northern Territory being abused, forced into restraint chairs, subjected to tear gas and forced to wear hoods. I think that every Australian was appalled by what they saw on the program—every Australian, that is, except for the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, who did not bother to watch it and was out to dinner. The following day in a press conference he actually decided to say that he was not aware prior to the screening the night before of the nature of the abuse that was occurring. But these reports have been contradicted by a number of sources, including the producer of the ABC program, who said that a copy of the show had been provided to the minister's office at lunchtime of the day of screening.
It is worth mentioning in some detail the nature of what was aired by Four Cornersmatters that, of course, are now the subject of a royal commission, including threats of self-harm by young people; the use of chair restraints, including the use of chair restraints that are not commonplace in youth justice; the use of so-called spit hoods on young people; that six young people were placed in solitary confinement for between six and 17 days and for between 22 and 24 hours a day; and juvenile inmates being tear-gassed.
The minister stated the day after Four Corners aired that he was not aware of the nature of the abuse occurring at Don Dale. Specifically, the minister stated that, prior to the Four Corners program airing, the issues at Don Dale had failed to 'pique his interest sufficiently' and that he had assumed that the Northern Territory government were taking care of the matter. This is despite the ABC having reported in October last year on calls by the Law Council of Australia for the Northern Territory government to take urgent action to protect vulnerable children incarcerated in its youth detention system. The same report stated:
Of particular concern to the Law Council is the indiscriminate use of hoods and handcuffs, the solitary confinement of young people in breach of the NT's Youth Justice Act, and the use of tear-gas in favour of a meaningful attempt to negotiate a peaceful outcome in response to last August's unrest.
The Minister for Indigenous affairs made these comments despite having been briefed my departmental officials on issues at Don Dale correctional centre in October last year—something the minister was forced to subsequently admit. This was far from the only report by the ABC last year. More significantly, there was also the review of the Northern Territory youth detention system by Michael Vita, known also as the Vita report. That report was released publicly in February 2015 and should have been well known to the minister.
So I ask the assistant minister: how is it possible that such matters could not have piqued the minister's interest, given there were public reports and that he was briefed on the matters by departmental officials? Why didn't the minister know about these matters? What did PM&C officials know about this abuse and what advice was provided to the Prime Minister's office and the Prime Minister about it?
In responding to these events, the government announced a royal commission, though only days after Brian Martin was appointed a royal commissioner he resigned. This happened, of course, because the government failed to consult with Indigenous people about the appointment. Minister, why was there no consultation prior to the announcement of the royal commission and the royal commissioner? If the minister did not consult with Indigenous people before an announcement was made, did the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General or any other minister do so?
What has changed the minister's behaviour to give any assurance that he now takes these matters seriously? What assurances are there that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs takes his responsibilities seriously and is committed to improving the lives of Indigenous people in a genuine and meaningful way? This is such a serious matter and it has been handled appallingly by this government. It is little wonder that some of the most respected and senior Indigenous leaders have lost faith in the minister.
Thank you for this opportunity to ask you some questions, Minister, in your role representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. I have long been very interested in and engaged in the issue of Indigenous advancement in Brisbane and in fact all around Australia. It has been great to have several visits to Brisbane already, over a very short period of time, from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs to talk about local Indigenous issues. On many of those occasions, we have focused specifically on Indigenous employment, Indigenous skills and Indigenous entrepreneurship. I know how important skills, jobs and economic opportunities are for many people, including Indigenous people in Brisbane. I know from my previous work at the National Retail Association, where we did a lot of work in the area of skills development for Indigenous communities in Far North Queensland and in the Torres Strait, as well as for a range of other vulnerable and less-skilled people right around society, how important it is to teach them and to help them achieve their full potential.
I am very aware that the coalition took to the election one of the most proudly pro-business platforms in living memory. Included in that platform was a great amount of support specifically for Indigenous entrepreneurs to create jobs and investment for all sectors in our community. I have been really interested and delighted to research and learn that the coalition has managed to create 39,000 Indigenous jobs since it came into office in 2013. I am a very strong supporter of the government having established a $115 million Indigenous entrepreneurs package, including $90 million for an Indigenous entrepreneurs fund. In the ongoing task of closing the gap, I know that the coalition is very committed to encouraging Indigenous innovation to create more opportunities for Indigenous businesses and, in turn, employment.
I am also very keen to ensure that the coalition's approach to government procurement is a game-changer for Indigenous businesses. Since the program commenced in July last year, the coalition government has awarded 911 contracts worth $154.1 million to over 270 Indigenous businesses. That compares to only about $6.2 million in Commonwealth procurement outcomes for Indigenous businesses in 2012-13, before we took office.
Minister, can you please tell me how the budget has guaranteed Indigenous entrepreneurs funding? What is the government doing to ensure funding will flow to business support and capability development activities?
I also rise to put to the assistant minister one very important issue within the Aboriginal community. Just the other day, I had reason to talk to some community members. I know from my own experience that, while the level of youth suicide is a national tragedy, in the Aboriginal community it is even more pronounced. I was talking to a woman from Yarrabah who lives up near Palm Island, and three young people have taken their own lives just in the space of two weeks. I would like to ask the assistant minister about this important topic. It needs to be understood that if there is a youth suicide in the Aboriginal community it is not isolated—people are related through kinship structures, and the grief and the trauma is felt not just by one family; it is felt right across that community.
Assistant Minister, I would like an update on the roundtable on Indigenous suicide held in the Kimberley on 14 October that got quite a bit of publicity. There were some issues that became obvious from the community: they did not want to see it as a talkfest. I would like that issue to be specifically addressed and to hear what the actual outcomes are. I noticed that the minister said there would be further discussions, but it seemed to me that it was just a bit of a talkfest, and I cannot see any real outcome from that. I would also like to ask the minister about the incidence and the strategies that are taking place across the country, not just in the Kimberley region, in relation to this particular issue.
The other thing I would like to mention is the issue of the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, and I understand my colleague has also raised this issue, around who knew what and when. It is very clear that not the whole truth has been told about that. I do not want to jump to conclusions but I would like some definite answers there.
I would also very much like to know what the methodology was for the implementation of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and, within that, how many of the Aboriginal advocacy groups have been defunded. I am aware of at least three and, if the government's overall approach to funding Indigenous organisations includes the defunding of advocacy groups, that is a very big concern.
The third issue I would like to raise is the outbreak of syphilis that is occurring across the north of Australia, Queensland and Western Australia. We know just how difficult this issue is. It is not an issue that is easily spoken about, but I would very much like to know what the government is doing about this, particularly in terms of community education, how Aboriginal health services are being supported, what access there is to primary care facilities and what good sexual health education programs and preventative health programs are in place and are being supported by the government.
Finally, can I say that the area around social justice for Indigenous people is something that everyone is responsible for, not just governments. I would like to know about those three specific issues: the methodology in relation to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy; what is happening in terms of primary health care and supporting primary healthcare facilities in relation to the north and the west with regard to that difficult issue of syphilis; and, most critically, what the outcomes were in relation to the discussions in the Kimberley on suicide, and what is happening nationally in taking this as an important and serious issue.
I thank all three members for their questions. I will seek, in the five minutes I have now, to get through as many of them as possible. We continue to accumulate a very long list of questions, so I will seek to focus on the most important of them, because there is no possible way that I can get through all of them in the time allotted. There are important questions around suicide prevention, the Don Dale corrections centre facility—a series of questions were raised there—and, of course, extremely important questions around the Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs program. Of course, that program in itself is very, very important for creating opportunity for Indigenous communities and creating gainful employment, which we know is an enormously important issue.
Let me touch first on some comments on the Don Dale correction facility questions. Obviously, the government is very concerned about the serious issues raised by the ABC report into the treatment of young people in the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre. The Commonwealth did act swiftly in establishing a royal commission into the detention of children in the Northern Territory, as the member opposite pointed out. Quite rightly, we made the decision to get on with it. Sometimes in politics it is very important to act decisively when there are very, very important issues at stake. We have asked the royal commission to forensically examine the workings of the Northern Territory's youth detention centre.
Minister Scullion already acknowledged that his office received briefing information about the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre going back to 2015. These documents and the information contained in all reports available at the time did not include the footage shown by the ABC. I understand that, following the lodgement of FOI requests, his department conducted a thorough search of briefs prepared for his office, and this also found some reference to the centre in the background of a meeting brief from 2015 as well. It is important to recognise that the documents received by the minister stated that the NT government was investigating the allegations and implementing the recommendations of the vetted report. In fact, the NT Children's Commissioner stated at an NT estimates hearing in June 2016 that she was satisfied with the work done on the implementation of her report's recommendation.
The NT government has made a number of immediate changes while the royal commission undertakes its work—and it is a good thing it is doing that—including announcing it will appoint an inspector-general for corrections and establishing a special police task force to investigate the allegations of violence.
I can go a little further into that, if time permits, but I do want to spend a moment on the question around Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs. I thank the member for Brisbane for that important question. He, of course, was in his electorate, when the $115 million Indigenous entrepreneurs package was announced by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. That package is a very important one, because it provides $90 million for the Indigenous Entrepreneurs Fund, which Indigenous small businesses and entrepreneurs can apply to for business assets. The fund will focus on regional areas and remote communities where accessing commercial finance is often not possible.
All of us know that a successful, growing business is an extraordinary opportunity. It creates opportunity not just for the business itself but for the employees and for the people in it.
An opposition member interjecting—
Those opposite, I hear them interjecting in some form—I have no idea what sense they are making over there. The truth is that we understand, on this side of the House, how important it is to have successful growing businesses in this country. That is something that we know, from personal experience, time and time again has an enormous impact. I saw the power of procurement policies over in the Pilbara as the iron ore boom started to grow during the early 2000s and what an enormously positive impact that had for those people and those communities. This set of programs is directed towards— (Time expired)
It is a shame that the member for Brisbane asked a question and then left the room before hearing the answer and it is a great shame that the consequence of that was that the minister did not get the chance in his response to answer the member for Barton's questions about suicide amongst Indigenous communities. I repeat and refer to the member for Barton's questions about both suicide and syphilis and ask that the minister address those questions.
I also refer to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. It is well known to members of this place, and especially well known to Indigenous people, that this government cut $500 million from the Indigenous affairs portfolio in its disastrous 2014 federal budget and established a new grants program called the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. This program was supposed to focus on jobs, land and the economy; children and schooling; safety and wellbeing; culture and capability; and remote Australia strategies. However, its implementation has been an utter disaster that has seen a reduction in frontline services.
In March 2016, a Senate inquiry delivered its final report into the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, making nine recommendations including:
… that future tender rounds are not blanket competitive processes and are underpinned by robust service planning and needs mapping.
… … …
… that future tendering processes should be planned strategically, with a clear sense of service gaps and community need based on consultation with local services and communities.
… … …
… that future selection criteria and funding guidelines should give weighting to the contribution and effectiveness of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to provide to their community beyond the service they are directly contracted to provide.
… … …
… that where possible and appropriate, longer contracts be awarded to ensure stability so that organisations can plan and deliver sustainable services to their communities.
… … …
… that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet improve its overall Indigenous Advancement Strategy communication plan to ensure that all stakeholders are fully informed and have access to clear and timely information.
… … …
… that the full internal review of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy process undertaken and facilitated by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet be made public.
… … …
… that the Government release the revised funding guidelines as a draft for consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and their organisations.
… … …
… that Government prioritise investment in capacity building and support for smaller community controlled organisations in future tender processes.
… … …
… that the Government act immediately to address the 30 June 2016 funding deadline for organisations.
To date, it would appear that the government has done nothing whatsoever to address these recommendations and it would appear that the government has done nothing to improve Indigenous people's access to frontline services. I will give an example. Today, I met with the Katherine Womens Information and Legal Service. They have two sources of funding: the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and the Commonwealth National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services. Of course, at the same time as the Indigenous Advancement Strategy money runs out, there is a 30 per cent cut to the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services. They are facing a funding cliff. There is no certainty for organisations funded under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. It is a real problem, not just because of the uncertainty for the clients but because of the uncertainty for planning of the services. If you do not know if you are going to have a job after a certain date, of course a workforce issue that arises from that. You might think about looking for other alternatives and you might be concerned about the longevity of your position. You also have a situation where that planning then flows on to the services that people are able to provide.
I ask the assistant minister: what has the government done to improve access to frontline services for Indigenous people and what measures can the assistant minister point to in subsequent budgets after the 2014 budget that achieved this? I ask the assistant minister whether the government is still committed to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and when any additional rounds of funding will be available through the IAS. Further, and of great importance, I ask the assistant minister what engagement there has been with Indigenous people to ensure that not only are the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration's inquiry implemented but are done in a way that Indigenous communities are consulted on the way frontline organisations are properly resourced to provide the services Indigenous people need.
In summary, there are two questions here for the minister. Firstly, what is being done about Indigenous suicide and syphilis? Secondly, what is being done about the Indigenous Advancement Strategy? I hope that the minister will take the time to answer the questions I have asked.
I am very pleased to ask a question of the minister today, particularly because in Wide Bay we do have a significant proportion of Indigenous people. We also have the community of Cherbourg in Wide Bay, which is very important to me. I have spent quite some time in Cherbourg helping where I can to close the gap. Indeed, during the campaign we had several visits from ministers—particularly the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, who spent some time in Cherbourg and Murgon with me visiting with the council and local people, looking at local programs and speaking to the people, particularly in the area of education. We visited the Cherbourg school, and it was very pleasing and encouraging to see what is happening there, particularly in the area of school attendance. Some of the statistics that surround school attendance and achieving a result at school for Indigenous people, and them subsequently not entering into the justice system, are quite staggering. Effectively, if we can get Indigenous people to finish year 10 their potential for going into the justice system is far, far reduced, which is what we all want to see. It was also very pleasing for the government to give Cherbourg a kick on and announce $230,000 for a very worthy program at the Ration Shed.
The coalition entered into government in 2013 with a determination to untangle an absolute mess of programs that were doing very little to reduce the disadvantage faced by our Indigenous people. We had specifically targeted three fundamental areas to help reduce this disadvantage. These areas were: getting the kids to school, employment and also making the community safer. These three priorities are critical to establishing the change needed to support better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly in remote areas, to ensure that First Australians and their communities can realise their hopes and aspirations for the future and that we really do close the gap and achieve our targets in those programs.
Education is the passport to a better future for children everywhere. It is no different for Indigenous children, wherever they live. Without a proper education, Indigenous children are more likely than not to be on the path toward welfare dependence, interaction with the justice system and poor health and housing outcomes, with little hope for the future. Giving kids the best chance in life means going to school regularly and achieving a good school education and then moving on to further education and employment. Obviously, successfully achieving those things, which we are so passionate about doing, is how we proactively prevent circumstances like those tragic circumstances of Don Dale and youth suicide in the Indigenous community, which is what we are about. With this in mind, I ask the minister: can the minister advise how the budget is supporting better education outcomes for Indigenous Australians and what funding has been allocated to support Indigenous students through school and university?
There are three minutes left. There are unanswered questions from you, the member for Wide Bay and the member for Barton. I call the minister.
I thank the various members for their questions. We are narrowing them down, which is a good thing. The number of questions does suggest to me that there must be some political statements in what is being said rather than a focus on the issues. But there are some very important issues in the questions that have been raised. Let me touch for a moment on the education question, the Indigenous Advancement Strategy question and the suicide prevention and health questions, which are all tied up in a series of questions asked by those opposite. All of these are extremely important.
I have a couple of comments to start with on the education side. We all know, as the member said, that
education is a passport to a better future. There is no better way of putting it. Of course we know, and I have seen personally, the extraordinary power of education for those who are disadvantaged in some form or another and the passport that it provides those people for a better life. We know the Remote School Attendance Strategy was introduced against a backdrop of declining attendance over many years. In the budget we have reaffirmed the government's commitment to better education outcomes for Indigenous Australians. It really does start with this question of attendance; that is absolutely central to our thinking about improvements in education. Since 2014, when the Minister for Indigenous Affairs introduced this measure initially, the government has invested $127 million to support the community-based Remote School Attendance Strategy through to 31 December 2018. That attendance strategy employs more than 450 local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to support the families and work with schools to lift attendance rates in 77 schools across 74 remote communities. I really commend this program, its objectives, and the results we are seeing, to this chamber. I think it is absolutely central to closing the gap and achieving the sorts of outcomes we all want to see in our Indigenous communities.
Let me make a couple of points about the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. The member for Griffith has made an assertion about this strategy which is absolutely incorrect. It is not correct to say that there has been a $535 million cut to the Indigenous affairs program, which is how you—
Order! The time for this session has concluded. I thank honourable members for their contributions.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Remainder of bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Australian businesses have unprecedented access to the global economy through our new free trade agreements, and our businesses, universities and research organisations are among the best in the world. But we are falling behind in areas of commercialisation and collaboration, ranking last or second last among OECD countries for business-research collaboration. Our appetite for risk is lower than in comparable countries, which means Australian start-ups and early-stage businesses often fail to attract capital to grow, and participation in science, maths and computing at high school is declining. That is why, through our National Innovation and Science Agenda, the government will invest $1.1 billion, focusing on four priority areas: helping businesses embrace risk and encouraging investment in start-ups; encouraging collaboration between businesses, universities and the research sector to commercialise ideas; training students for the jobs of the future; and having government lead by example in the way it uses technology.
At a local level, an organisation in Cairns called theSPACE is embodying much of what we are trying to achieve nationally. Founders Damian Zammit and Troy Haines have positioned Cairns as a start-up and innovation hot-spot. This weekend, in an Australian first, theSPACE will host an innovation weekend to demystify all the talk about innovation. Over one weekend, business owners will be partnered up with IT professionals, programmers, designers and business development experts, under the guidance of innovation specialists. Teams will work on addressing challenges and developing ideas and opportunities put forward by business owners. There will be short, entertaining, educational sessions on launching ideas, innovation, the internet of things, IP protection, accounting and more, with mentors on hand to support teams. It is a fantastic opportunity and I would urge anyone who is interested to head to the innovation weekend website for more information.
Talking of local innovators, just this week I spoke to Darren Tonkin, who has launched a tech start-up called Storyboard Social. It is a fabulous concept where, in as little as 30 seconds at the end of your day, the Storyboard app creatively matches your photos and videos with the places you have visited. Friends and family can follow along with your stories and experience your journey as if they were there with you. Two weeks ago, Storyboard won the Creative3 Pitch, which means Darren will be representing Australia in Denmark at the Creative Business Cup. This is the equivalent of Eurovision in the start-up world. Darren says: 'With the innovation boom and the push by the government, it is great that companies like Storyboard are starting to get traction.' I certainly wish him all the best and will certainly help Storyboard get exposure wherever I can.
In line with encouraging regional innovation, the coalition government has committed $10 million towards the $50 million Cairns Innovation Centre at James Cook University. The CIC will promote business innovation and help local companies, industry associations, researchers and students share knowledge and develop commercial opportunities under a single roof. It will operate in collaboration with Advance Cairns, Cairns Regional Council and theSPACE, and with the Tropical North Learning Academy at Smithfield State High School and Trinity Beach State School. I recently visited Smithfield State High School with our Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham, and caught up with students at the academy. With robotics, drones and 3D creations, school has certainly changed since I was a lad. We heard about the internet of things—an amazing program—and the creativity of the kids was just so impressive.
Recently I also called for applications from people and organisations wanting to become Cairns's new encouraging entrepreneurship and employment facilitator. I know that Far Northerners have a wealth of innovative ideas and creativity. It is daunting to be confronted by a lack of training, access to finance or business networks, which is the case for many of our young jobseekers. This is where having a facilitator in Cairns will provide practical support to help local young people develop their ideas into successful businesses. Anyone interested in being a facilitator can take part in a Department of Employment webinar on 21 October 2016. I welcome both the national and regional focus on innovation, which will go a long way towards driving economic growth and diversity for northern Australia.
Two days ago an alert went out saying fake electricity bills are being emailed in an attempt to spread ransomware. The fake email looks like a standard bill, but directs the email recipient to click on a link that takes them to a website designed to install ransomware on the victim's computer. Once installed, this ransomware will encrypt the victim's files, handicapping the computer's functionality, and the attacker will demand payment to fix the problem.
This is certainly not the first time this scam has been perpetrated. In June this year at least 10,000 people reported being scammed by emails looking like AGL bills. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's Scamwatch has received nearly 5,000 reports of ransomware this year, up from 4,400 in the year before. Ransomware affects people in every state and every territory, people of every age and every background. It is extortion and it is illegal. But once it has occurred it is very hard to recover from. Systems that have been infected with ransomware nearly always require clean backups in order to be fully restored. Unless you are regularly backing up your system, prevention is critical.
There are steps individuals can take to make sure they are staying safe and secure from the threat of ransomware online. Do not open attachments or click on links in unsolicited or unexpected emails. So many people overlook this. Do not click on those links in unsolicited or unexpected emails. Maintain regular backups of important files and keep the backups in a location isolated from the local network. Keep your computer up to date with antivirus, antispyware and firewall software. I know that the time it takes can quite often impinge on people's online activities, but it is vitally important, for those online activities to continue to take place, for the antivirus software to be kept up to date.
Ransomware is a high-profile crime. We can all imagine what it must be like to experience it. You could be locked out of your means of earning an income. You could have some unknown entity take control of your computer and everything on it, and not know whether you will get it back it not. It is easy to see the temptation to simply pay the ransom that is required by these people issuing the ransomware notices. But the advice of law enforcement agencies is that victims refuse to part with one cent. That is because there is no guarantee that attackers will provide a working decryption tool, and victims are not protected against future attacks. The attackers did it once, and there is nothing to say they will hesitate in doing it again. What becomes a one-off payment quickly becomes a money pit.
But malware is not just being used to extract money. We are talking about intellectual property. We are talking about personal identity. When you think about what malware is capable of disrupting, the cost of prevention pales in comparison to the cost of failing to prevent a cybercrime.
This is particularly the case for small businesses. Having run my own small business for a decade before I came into politics, I am acutely aware of the demands of being self-employed. I was involved in every part of the business, which means I was always on my email. I can only imagine what sort of effect it would have had on my business if I had been locked out of my computer. For nearly a third of Australian small businesses, it is not something they need to imagine, because 30 per cent—I was really surprised and horrified by this figure—of small businesses experienced a cybercrime incident in the year prior to June 2015. The threat is real and it is happening now. I encourage small businesses to consider what a breach might cost them and their business's reputation. Determining potential losses can help focus your resources in the right places and on the right vulnerabilities. A stitch in time by a company today could save nine, if it helps it to respond quickly and resolve a breach more effectively.
Ransomware and other financial cyberthreats are the new normal. We will not eradicate this threat, but we can manage it with cooperation. Few of the cybersecurity challenges facing government are not also facing the private sector. Business and government need to get better at sharing the risk of these threats. We all need to take this seriously. The online world is full of opportunities, but it also has its share of threats for government, for businesses and for individuals. We need to work together to feel safe in this environment.
I rise to discuss the damaging effects of the Queensland Labor government's lockout laws on locals and businesses in Brisbane. Blanket bans are one of the more blunt and clunky policy tools available to policymakers. Calls for blanket bans, while usually motivated by good intentions, are too often knee-jerk responses, and they can have significant side-effects or unintended consequences. Usually, there are better and more sophisticated policy responses available—sometimes using data, sometimes using technology and often, hopefully, allowing us to avoid punishing the majority for the sins of a few.
Labor's lockout laws came into partial effect on 1 July—the night before the federal election. I believe the issue was a significant factor in the election result in Brisbane, where the Labor Party recorded its worst result since Federation. I am also aware that the issue motivated many hospitality workers, bar owners, musicians and night-life patrons to actively campaign against Labor.
The most stringent rules in Queensland's lockout laws are yet to take effect. They will begin by February. The cost to the Queensland economy is estimated to be about $150 million per year, which I note—with some irony—is in the ballpark of holding a national plebiscite.
Order! A division has been called in the House, so I will put the question.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:00