(): I present report No. 4 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 21 November. The report will be printed in the Hansard fortoday, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 8 November 2016.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 21 November 2016, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to workplace relations, and for related purposes. (Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Christmas) Bill 2016)
(Notice given 8 November 2016.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to establish Renew Australia, and for related purposes. (Renew Australia Bill 2016)
(Notice given 8 November 2016.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 MS C. F. KING: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to logos used by political parties, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Protect the Eureka Flag) Bill 2016)
(Notice given 8 November 2016.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
4 MR ALBANESE: To present a Bill for an Act to establish the High Speed Rail Planning Authority, and for related purposes. (High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2016)
(Notice given 20 October 2016.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
5 MS HENDERSON: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) UNICEF celebrates its 70th anniversary on 11 December 2016; and
(b) it is mandated by the United Nations General Assembly to advocate for the protection of children's rights, to help meet their basic needs and expand opportunities to reach their full potential;
(2) acknowledges the work of UNICEF which now operates in over 190 countries and territories and provides a range of important services including child protection, education and child survival needs (such as nutrition and sanitation);
(3) notes that the Government provides $21 million a year in core funding to UNICEF's regular resources as set out in the Strategic Partnership Framework 2016-2020 signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 27 April 2016;
(4) acknowledges the Minister for Foreign Affairs' October 2016 announcement of $1.5 million in funding for UNICEF following Hurricane Matthew in Haiti; and
(5) congratulates UNICEF and its staff around the world for all the good work they do and wishes them well into the future.
(Notice given 8 November 2016.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Henderson—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
1 Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 [No. 2] (Mr Bandt): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from12September2016).
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Notices—continued
6 MS VAMVAKINOU: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) 500 to 700 Palestinian children are arrested, detained and prosecuted in the Israeli military court system each year;
(b) Human Rights Watch reported in April that arrests of Palestinian children by Israeli forces had doubled in the preceding six months;
(c) Defence for Children International research, based on 429 affidavits from Palestinian children, indicates that 97 per cent of children had no parent or legal counsel available during interrogation and 75 per cent endured some form of physical violence following arrest;
(d) the United States State Department's 2014 human rights report on Israel states that military courts have more than a 99 per cent conviction rate for Palestinian defendants;
(e) UNICEF has reported that ill-treatment in the Israeli military detention system remains widespread, systematic, and institutionalised throughout the process; and
(f) Australia raised concerns with Israel about the treatment of Palestinian minors in 2011 and 2014, however there has been little improvement concerning the treatment of Palestinian children by Israeli forces; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to raise concerns with the Israeli Government about the treatment of Palestinian children.
(Notice given 18 October 2016.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.
Speech time limits—
Ms Vamvakinou—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR PERRETT: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) prior to the passage of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 the Houses of the Australian Parliament had the power to expel a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives;
(b) the expulsion of a Member of this House is the most drastic of sanctions;
(c) on 11 November 1920, the then Member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Hugh Mahon, was expelled from this House; and
(d) Mr Mahon is the only Member to have ever been expelled from this House;
(2) acknowledges that Mr Mahon was expelled:
(a) by a motion brought on hastily and with limited time for debate;
(b) by a vote of the House on party lines; and
(c) without the due process and procedural fairness that such an important issue deserves; and
(3) recognises that:
(a) it was unjust on the limited evidence for the institution to which Mr Mahon had been democratically elected to reverse the decision of his constituents; and
(b) the expulsion of Mr Mahon was a misuse of the power then invested in the House.
(Notice given 10 October 2016.)
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Perrett—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MR ZIMMERMAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that the Government won the election and has been getting on with the job of governing; and
(2) congratulates the Government for the following achievements:
(a) securing Australia's 25 consecutive year of economic growth;
(b) protecting our borders and making our nation more secure with over 800 days having passed without a successful people smuggling venture;
(c) delivering:
(i) a personal tax cut to 500,000 middle income Australians;
(ii) a fairer and more flexible superannuation system; and
(iii) $11 billion of budget repair;
(d) establishing a process which makes bank Chief Executive Officers answerable to the public through appearances before Parliament;
(e) legislating to protect volunteer firefighters from union takeovers;
(f) reintroducing bills to restore the rule of law on the nation's construction sites;
(g) securing the naval shipbuilding industry and jobs for the future;
(h) strengthening trade and defence ties with Singapore, creating thousands of new jobs;
(i) strengthening the United States alliance in defence, counter-terrorism and cyber security;
(j) reintroducing legislation to crack down on illegal firearms trafficking;
(k) increasing protection for women and children against domestic violence;
(l) growing our industries with record commodity prices and a $2.5 billion water infrastructure rollout to support farmers and the resource sector;
(m) fixing the problems in Vocational Education and Training and cracking down on dodgy providers;
(n) increasing digital literacy and improved school resourcing;
(o) supporting more Indigenous Australians through skills, jobs and language;
(p) signing new City Deals to improve housing and expand public transport;
(q) accelerating the broadband build and connecting rural Australia;
(r) securing an agreement with the states and territories on energy security and reforms for affordable, reliable power;
(s) protecting Medicare, improving primary health care, making over 2,000 medicines cheaper and simplifying private health care;
(t) saving lives through a National Cancer Screening Register;
(u) supporting the South Australian steel sector and jobs by providing a $49.2 million loan to Arrium;
(v) addressing long term welfare dependence;
(w) delivering better:
(i) tax arrangements for working holiday makers and backpackers; and
(ii) child care for 1 million Australians and lifting immunisation rates;
(x) showing a commitment to new resettlement programs for genuine refugees as a result of strong border policies; and
(y) boosting Australia's place in the workforce with access to new markets and stronger ties including with East Asia, Europe, and the United Kingdom.
(Notice given 8 November 2016.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Zimmerman—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 DR FREELANDER: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the unemployment rate in Australia has barely fallen from immediate post Global Financial Crisis levels;
(b) Treasury projections that the unemployment in Australia is unlikely to improve in the next three years under current policy settings; and
(c) significant labour market indicators such as rate of under-employment and levels of long term and youth unemployment, are continuing concerns within the community and amongst economic commentators, as is the comparative decline in the availability of full time jobs;
(2) further notes that:
(a) rates on unemployment in many OECD counties have fallen significantly since 2012 while Australia's unemployment rate has remained stagnant; and
(b) Reserve Bank of Australia observations about the likely limited effect on economic activity of further interest rate cuts;
(3) recognises:
(a) the negative impact on the federal budget in continuing high levels of unemployment;
(b) the cost to individuals, the community and the economy in people not being able to find work; and
(c) the Government's failure to grow full-time employment opportunities; and
(4) urges the Government to give higher priority to addressing labour market stagnation and take whatever steps it can through fiscal policy and selective initiatives to address this ongoing blight on Australian society.
(Notice given 8 November 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Dr Freelander—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MR RAMSEY: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that reducing social harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol, drug and gambling abuse is a key priority nationally and for local communities;
(2) recognises that the Government is currently trialling the cashless debit card in two communities—Ceduna in South Australia, and the East Kimberley in Western Australia—in partnership with local community leaders in those communities; and
(3) acknowledges the:
(a) hard work, dedication and commitment of community leaders in Ceduna and the East Kimberley in co-designing the trials with Government, and their leadership in its implementation and delivery in their communities; and
(b) positive initial results of the cashless debit card model in the two trial communities, including the strong positive feedback from the community on the ground.
(Notice given 8 November 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Ramsey—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 MS L. M. CHESTERS: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Fair Work Ombudsman's (FWO's) report Inquiry into the wages and conditions of people working under the 417 Working Holiday Visa Program (October 2016) found that more than one third of 417 visa holders claimed that they were paid less than the minimum wage;
(b) the inquiry found that the 417 visa program created an environment where unreasonable and unlawful requirements are being imposed on visa holders by unscrupulous businesses;
(c) the FWO, Ms Natalie James, said in a statement that the inquiry confirms that overseas workers seeking regional work to satisfy the 88 day requirement and obtain a second-year 417 visa are particularly vulnerable to exploitation;
(2) acknowledges:
(a) that in 2015-16, 76 per cent of litigations filed by the FWO involved visa holder workers;
(b) that the inquiry found instances of employers engaging in sophisticated labour supply chains involving sham contracting, where workers were in fact employees, to exploit vulnerable 417 visa holders to gain a competitive or commercial advantage through the reduction of labour costs; and
(c) findings from the inquiry found that the 417 visa program has been used to source an unpaid workforce, thus facilitating an unfair commercial advantage to these employers, distorting the market place and placing pressure on the domestic employment market;
(3) expresses its disappointment in the Government for announcing yet another taskforce, the Migrant Workers Taskforce, to look at the issue of worker exploitation, while there is still no legislation that has been presented to the Parliament that will change the law to protect exploited workers; and
(4) calls on the Government to join the Opposition in preventing workers from being exploited by supporting its legislation before the Parliament, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Australian Workers) Bill 2016.
(Notice given 18 October 2016.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Ms L. M. Chesters—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Orders of the day
MS VAMVAKINOU: Debate to be resumed on the motion of Ms Vamvakinou—
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) 500 to 700 Palestinian children are arrested, detained and prosecuted in the Israeli military court system each year;
(b) Human Rights Watch reported in April that arrests of Palestinian children by Israeli forces had doubled in the preceding six months;
(c) Defence for Children International research, based on 429 affidavits from Palestinian children, indicates that 97 per cent of children had no parent or legal counsel available during interrogation and 75 per cent endured some form of physical violence following arrest;
(d) the United States State Department's 2014 human rights report on Israel states that military courts have more than a 99 per cent conviction rate for Palestinian defendants;
(e) UNICEF has reported that ill-treatment in the Israeli military detention system remains widespread, systematic, and institutionalised throughout the process; and
(f) Australia raised concerns with Israel about the treatment of Palestinian minors in 2011 and 2014, however there has been little improvement concerning the treatment of Palestinian children by Israeli forces; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to raise concerns with the Israeli Government about the treatment of Palestinian children.
(Notice given 18 October 2016.
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Notices—continued
6 MR HASTIE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that as the terrorist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant comes under increasing pressure in Iraq and Syria, coming with the risk that more foreign fighters will seek to leave, with some trying to return to their home countries, including Australia;
(2) acknowledges that the Government:
(a) has given greater support, funding and legislative powers to law enforcement and security agencies; and
(b) continues to work in close partnership with international partners to counter the terrorism risk; and
(3) notes that the national security challenges facing Australia continue to evolve.
(Notice given 8 November 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Hastie—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
7 MR GILES: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes with deep concern that:
(a) income inequality in Australia is growing such that currently the top 20 per cent of households receive half of Australia's income while the bottom 20 per cent receive just four per cent; and
(b) in 2013 the top 1 per cent of Australian earners received 9 per cent of Australia's income, and the top 0.1 per cent received 2.5 per cent, in both cases representing the highest proportion since the 1950s, and a proportion which continues to increase;
(2) notes rapidly increasing executive and, in particular, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) remuneration, for example between 1971 and 2008, real CEO pay grew by nearly five times, while the real average weekly earnings grew just over one and a half times despite:
(a) research showing that executive pay increases are not closely related to company performance;
(b) the belief that large disparities between executive pay and average earnings might actually demotivate a company's employees and adversely affect priorities, as reported in the 2009 Productivity Commission inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia; and
(c) the belief that poor remuneration arrangements can promote inappropriate, risky short term decision making, carrying wider economic ramifications including a negative impact on productivity growth;
(3) notes the positive effect of past legislative efforts on ensuring corporate executive remuneration is transparent, particularly the 'two strikes' legislation which came into effect in 2011, acknowledging that mandatory disclosure of CEO pay ratios, as required in the United Kingdom and more recently in the United States, would:
(a) provide:
(i) important information to shareholders voting on executive remuneration; and
(ii) a more accurate measure of an important aspect of income inequality in Australia; and
(b) improve the health of our democracy by making important information more accessible to the public; and
(4) calls on the Government to consider following the lead of the United States in its Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in mandating that public companies disclose the ratio of a CEO's annual total remuneration to the average annual total of all company employees.
(Notice given 8November 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Giles—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
8 MR LITTLEPROUD: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) on 8 November at Government House the Governor-General awarded ten soldiers with military awards for actions at the Battle of Long Tan;
(b) these soldiers received these awards 50 years after the Battle of Long Tan:
(i) which was the most costly single battle fought by Australian soldiers in the Vietnam War, involving 105 Australians and three New Zealanders from D Company 6RAR and more than 2,000 enemy troops; and
(ii) where a total of 17 Australians were killed in action and 25 were wounded, one of whom later died from his wounds; and
(2) acknowledges:
(a) the ten soldiers who received an award, some posthumously, including Lieutenant Adrian Roberts, Sergeant Frank Alcorta, Lance Corporal Barry Magnussen (deceased), Second Lieutenant Gordon Sharp (deceased), Privates Neil Bextrum, Ron Brett (deceased), Ian Campbell, William Roche, Geoffrey Peters and Noel Grimes;
(b) the service and sacrifice of all those who served their country in Vietnam; and
(c) all of Australia's service men and women who display courage, bravery and mateship above and beyond the call of duty.
(Notice given 8 November 2016.)
Time allotted—35 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Littleproud—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 5 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
9 MR WATTS: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that White Ribbon:
(a) is a male led campaign to end male violence against women;
(b) is now active in over 60 countries around the world; and
(c) has ambassadors around Australia who are working to engage men and encourage them to take a leadership role in ending violence against women;
(2) notes that:
(a) in 2016 in Australia, each week approximately one woman is murdered by a partner or former partner;
(b) one in four Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner;
(c) men's violence against women is a symptom of gender inequality in our society; and
(d) social policy initiatives and law reform addressing gender inequality are central to reducing attitudes that support violence against women;
(3) recognises that:
(a) 25 November is White Ribbon Day; and
(b) the white ribbon is the symbol of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women; and
(4) supports White Ribbon and other organisations to eliminate violence against women.
(Notice given 8 November 2016.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Watts—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees.
by leave—I move:
That:
(1) Mr Crewther be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and that, in his place, Mr Vasta be appointed a member of the committee;
(2) Ms Henderson be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and that, in her place, Mr Wallace be appointed a member of the committee;
(3) Mr Wallace be discharged from the Publications Committee and that, in his place, Mr Falinski be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
India is the world's largest democracy, an emerging Asian superpower, an influential regional power and a strategic partner for Australia. Australia's growing collaboration with India on energy security and trade is an investment in the future of both countries.
Links between the Australian and Indian people have never been stronger, with over 450,000 people of Indian origin living in Australia. The 2011 census indicated Punjabi was the fastest-growing language in Australia. The Indian diaspora in Australia remains engaged in developments in India, shown by the reception Prime Minister Modi received when he visited Australia in November 2014. The nuclear cooperation agreement has delivered on a key priority for both our governments and I know is an important symbol to the Indian origin community here reflecting the great strides made in our bilateral relationship.
Nuclear power is an important part of India's energy mix. It will help India reduce its carbon emissions and provide it with the secure supply of power it needs to underpin its ongoing economic development. The opportunity for Australia to supply uranium to India and to help to fuel that development is a significant one. Uranium mining companies in Australia are already negotiating the first contracts for what promises to be a significant trade.
As the fastest growing major economy in the world, with GDP growth rates consistently above seven per cent, India has a substantial and growing need for energy to sustain its development, and nuclear power will play a key role. Around 300 million Indians live without access to power. By 2050, when India's population is expected to reach 1.7 billion, India aims to provide 25 per cent of its energy from nuclear power. Completion of the reactors already under construction will add substantially to India's existing nuclear power generation capacity. To fuel that capacity, India will need up to 2,000 tonnes of uranium each year.
Negotiations on a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement, to enable uranium sales to India, began under the Labor government in 2013 and were brought to a conclusion by the coalition government the following year. In 2015, members of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties from across the parliament indicated their support for bringing the bilateral agreement into force.
The Australia-India nuclear cooperation agreement is underpinned by a robust safeguards regime applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA). IAEA safeguards apply to the civil part of India's fuel cycle, where Australian uranium and any nuclear material derived from it will exclusively remain. The measures in place to prevent the diversion of Australian uranium from the civil part of India's fuel cycle are at least as strong as those in place for other export destinations. These include explicit commitments by India in a binding bilateral agreement with Australia, and robust inspection and accounting procedures enforced by the IAEA.
Successive Australian governments have pursued a nuclear cooperation agreement with India with attention to the fact that it is not a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT), including how the special case of India relates to Australia's commitments under that treaty and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Thus, when I introduced the Australia-India nuclear cooperation agreement to this House in October 2014, I noted that trade in uranium with India had only become possible in light of changes to international guidelines on nuclear supply to India in 2008, agreed by the 48 members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (the NSG), including Australia. The NSG includes all of the major nuclear supplier countries and others that are active in nonproliferation efforts. The national interest analysis document that I tabled alongside the nuclear cooperation agreement noted that 'in light of the unique framework within which nuclear cooperation with India is proposed, the government is considering legislation to clarify the legal basis for uranium transfers to India'. The Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill is the result of that consideration.
The bill provides that decisions approving civil nuclear transfers to India are taken not to be inconsistent with Australia's obligations relating to nuclear safeguards under the NPT and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, if particular conditions are met. Those conditions relate to the application of nuclear safeguards under India's agreement with the IAEA as well as the Australia-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation.
Although it remains outside the NPT, bringing India into the nonproliferation mainstream has cemented its commitment to key nonproliferation initiatives. It has also paved the way for India to deepen its strategic relationship with the US, Australia and other Indo-Pacific democracies. An India, keen to work closely with likeminded countries, is clearly in Australia's security and economic interests.
The evolution of international policies to enable nuclear cooperation with India and to draw it more fully into the nonproliferation mainstream was led by the United States between 2005 and 2008 with the support of Australia, and other countries. In 2008, the Nuclear Suppliers Group accepted that, on the basis of commitments and actions by India in support of nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear trade with India was possible. As part of that deal, the NSG recognised that there is no practical way for IAEA safeguards to apply comprehensively to nuclear activities in India while India retains nuclear weapons. Rather, India would negotiate a new safeguards agreement with the IAEA to apply safeguards to India's civilian nuclear facilities, including those fuelled with imported uranium.
The NSG decision recognised India's commitments to support international nonproliferation efforts, including continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing, to separate its civil and military nuclear activities and to accept IAEA safeguards on the former. In the years since 2008, India has met those commitments. India has brought its additional protocol with the IAEA into force. India has maintained its moratorium on nuclear testing and it is working with Australia and others to promote negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. As part of its separation of civil and military activities, India committed to designate 22 civil facilities for the application of safeguards by the IAEA. All 22 are now under safeguards.
The Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill reflects Australia's decision to supply uranium to India on the basis of the NSG decision and the safeguards that India and the IAEA have put in place to implement it, as well as the conditions in the Australia-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation. This will give legal and commercial certainty to uranium-mining companies in Australia so that they may fulfil contracts to supply Australian uranium to India with confidence that exports would not be hindered by domestic legal action relating to the scope of the nuclear safeguards that the IAEA applies in India.
Australia has a hard-won reputation as a reliable, cost-effective supplier of energy and India is a large and growing market. A number of Australian uranium companies are actively pursuing the new market opportunity that India presents.
Nuclear power unquestionably makes and will continue to make a significant contribution to the mitigation of CO2 emissions worldwide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change observed in 2014 that achieving deep cuts in greenhouse gas will require more intensive use of a range of low-carbon technologies, including nuclear energy. India's ambitious plans to expand nuclear energy generation are likely to make a valuable contribution to its pledged reduction in emissions intensity. India aims to raise nuclear capacity from six gigawatts today to 63 gigawatts in 2032, an increase that is comparable to Australia's entire power generation capacity. Australian uranium will help to power this.
Given that nuclear energy is a zero-emissions source of base load power, I said in October 2014 that I expected support for the Australia-India nuclear cooperation agreement from across the political divide. Trade under the nuclear cooperation agreement, together with the growing dialogue we have with India on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, will also help to reinforce the nonproliferation commitments that India has made in recent years, and will help Australia and India to build an enduring bilateral relationship.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present a bill which will excise compensation coverage for Australian Defence Force members and former members with service prior to 1 July 2004 from other Commonwealth employees, providing a 'military specific' scheme for the long-term administration of claims for Defence Force members.
The bill will duplicate the existing Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRCA) as a standalone act, with appropriate amendments to give full control of the act to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.
Importantly, eligibility and benefits under the standalone act will be the same as those currently available to serving and former ADF members under the existing SRCA. I will just repeat that because it is very important: importantly, eligibility and benefits under the standalone act will be the same as those currently available to serving and former ADF members under the existing SRCA.
There are no other changes to benefits or entitlements in the new act or the enabling bill. The new act will simply replicate the SRCA and retain the provisions that currently apply to members and former members of the ADF. Indeed, section 121B specifically operates to protect the entitlements of those covered by the SRCA and to ensure that no person is disadvantaged by the enactment of this act.
It will not apply to (or impact on) veterans with eligibility under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA).
The VEA and the MRCA will remain in place and DVA clients with entitlements under these acts will be unaffected by the commencement of the new act.
The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 currently provides compensation coverage to all Commonwealth employees and is administered by Comcare on behalf of the Department of Employment.
The current act is also administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, with part XI extending coverage to Australian Defence Force members and former members for injuries and illnesses linked to service prior to 1 July 2004.
Members and former members with conditions linked to service from 1 July 2004 onwards, are covered by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.
While the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ceased to apply to new periods of Defence Force service from 1 July 2004, a significant proportion of ongoing compensation and treatment expenditure under the act continues to apply to current and former Defence Force personnel.
The development of a standalone SRCA for ADF members and veterans was announced by government nearly two years ago, during which time DVA has been consulting with Defence and ex-service representatives (both of which have been supportive of a standalone act).
The duplication of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in the form of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 is important for DVA as it will give the Minister for Veterans' Affairs responsibility for all compensation acts covering ADF members. Once again, this is worth highlighting: these changes will give the Minister for Veterans' Affairs responsibility for all compensation acts covering ADF members.
It is a foundational step towards broader reform being undertaken by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to significantly improve services for veterans and their families by re-engineering DVA business processes. To enable this veteran-centric reform to occur, it is essential that policy responsibility for relevant legislation sits with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.
It will also allow DVA to consult with the veteran and Defence communities in the future on areas of potential alignment with the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 once the standalone act commences.
I want to acknowledge the strong support for the establishment of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 from the Ex-Service Organisation Round Table (ESORT) and the Department of Defence and I am privileged to have the opportunity to bring about a change that will allow the government to ensure that the changing needs of our injured and ill Defence Force members and their families are appropriately met into the future.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am delighted to introduce this bill, which includes two important amendments to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991.
The first amendment in this bill will ensure that Commonwealth departments and agencies can benefit from the Australian Government's Export Finance and Insurance Corporation's, or Efic's, financing expertise.
Following Efic's provision of services to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, we know there is latent demand within the Commonwealth Public Service to leverage Efic's specialist expertise around financing. However, in its current form, the act does not allow Efic to share its expertise within the Australian government.
This amendment unlocks the potential for Efic to provide assistance to Commonwealth entities and companies in the operation and administration of financing programs, when required. Access to Efic's services will be subject to ministerial approval to ensure there are checks and balances. This amendment is in line with government policy to reduce duplication across government and the implementation of our Smaller Government agenda.
The second amendment to the EFIC Act will enable Efic to better support small and medium sized enterprises in seizing export opportunities abroad.
SMEs are the engine room of the Australian economy. The majority of Australian exporters are SMEs. Despite this, SMEs traditionally find it more difficult to secure export finance, especially when their target market is an emerging or frontier one.
This is where Efic plays a valuable role. Efic helps Australian SMEs bridge the finance gap when their bank is unable to assist—enabling them to tap into new overseas markets for their products and services and grow their exports. This is great news: more exports means more economic growth, more job opportunities and a better standard of living for all Australians.
However, the ways in which our innovative SMEs are engaging overseas are changing rapidly. As such, so too must our legislation in order for Efic to continue to effectively fulfil its purpose of helping Australian businesses achieve export success.
This amendment before us will enhance Efic's capacity to provide loans to SMEs by replacing the current definition of 'eligible export transaction', which currently applies to Efic loans, with the broader definition of 'Australian export trade', which applies to Efic guarantees. This latter definition rightly focuses on the benefit flowing back to Australia from the export activity—like export earnings—rather than details of where the goods are assembled, where investments are made, or who the buyer is.
In 2015 the EFIC Act was amended to enable Efic to lend directly to SMEs. This amendment builds on that by ensuring Efic can effectively support a wider range of innovative SMEs—particularly SMEs involved in global supply chains, SMEs investing overseas to expand their sales, or SMEs looking to provide services directly to retail customers.
Like the 2015 amendment, this will also have a real dollar impact on Australian exporters. SMEs that apply for and receive a loan, rather than a guarantee, could save up to an estimated $12,000 per application. For a small business launching into a new market, this could be the difference between an opportunity taken and an opportunity lost.
Consider the recent case of a Sydney based IT company. Following on from the success of their marketing platform here in Australia, an opportunity arose to expand into North America. However, in order to succeed, the company assessed that it would need to set up a physical sales office in Dallas.
Unable to obtain the finance from its bank to establish the office, the company approached Efic for support. Under the existing act, Efic could only provide a guarantee to the company's bank, which then issued the funding. While the bank was supportive, having two financiers involved in the transaction caused significant delays. We all know the old business adage that time is money. Unfortunately for this company, the delay took place at a time of volatility in the Australian dollar, which saw the cost of establishing its overseas office increase significantly.
This amendment also responds to the fact that technology is placing more Australian SMEs within direct reach of their overseas consumers. This was simply not possible 25 years ago when the act was drafted. We need to ensure the act responds to the modern-day reality of Australian services companies selling directly to households in China, the United States or indeed anywhere in the world. By extending Efic's lending flexibility to cover this emerging opportunity, more Australian SME services companies—such as providers of information technology, consulting, education and tourism providers—will now be able to access finance to export and seize the opportunities replete in the global marketplace.
It is important to note that this proposed amendment does not bring Efic into direct competition with private financiers nor in any way impinge upon Efic's overall function to facilitate and encourage exports. Likewise, it will not discourage private sector participation in the market as Efic will continue to operate only in the market gap, where other financiers cannot help.
The amendments contained within this bill are minor, but their impact on important parts of the economy will be major. This bill will benefit small, often family-owned, exporters, as they engage in new and innovative ways of exploring business opportunities overseas. It will ensure Efic remains agile to respond to their developing needs. It will also cut the red tape that restricts Commonwealth entities and companies leveraging Efic's financing expertise when required. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Shimon Peres, who passed away on 28 September in Tel Aviv, was one of Israel's best known and most loved public figures. Peres's public life spanned six decades, including time as Israel's President, Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and as a member of the Knesset for an extraordinary 47 years.
I must remark that today, 9 November, is the 78th anniversary of Kristallnacht, because Peres often spoke about Kristallnacht. The tragedy of Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass, when SA Brownshirts and mobs of Nazi supporters murdered nearly 100 Jews and torched and vandalised Jewish synagogues, homes, schools, businesses and cemeteries, was a turning point in the nature of persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. When Peres spoke about Kristallnacht, it was as he spoke about the Holocaust, not with a view to revenge but as lessons in history that must be learned so that they are never repeated.
Peres was a giant of Israeli politics. A prodigious optimist, he worked tirelessly to achieve peace, no matter how many hurdles arose. He was a deep thinker and an inspired speaker, whose ability to negotiate when negotiation seemed lost was legendary.
Shimon Peres was a deep soul, a man of literature and poetry. His place in the history of Israel is almost mythical in its greatness, but all of his achievements were reached through hard work, negotiation and incredible resolve. Shimon Peres was an icon, not only of Israel but of peace itself: a man whose early life was engulfed in the rabid anti-Semitism of the 1930s and 1940s but who emerged from this senseless hatred determined to bring peace to his people and to his region. It is well documented that Peres's grandfather was one of millions of Jews who perished in the horror of the Holocaust, but this personal tragedy, though scarring, did not embitter Peres, who spent his life fighting to ensure that the tragedy that is war was not unnecessarily repeated. I was fortunate enough to meet Shimon Peres several times and was always impressed by his optimism, humanity and appreciation of the strong bonds between Israel and Australia.
Peres was a man deeply intertwined with the history of Israel. He was there at the beginning, when the modern state of Israel was founded. He was the man who helped achieve one of the biggest steps toward peace in the Middle East, through the Oslo peace accord, for which he was later deservedly awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. He was there in Israel's most recent history, as a guiding, passionate and beloved President from 2007 to 2014. Shimon Peres is an inspiration to millions of people, Jews and non-Jews alike, for his irrepressible passion for peace and his unmatched resolve to achieve it. I quote from Shimon Peres's courageous speech at the German Bundestag on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, 27 January 2010:
We want to learn from the Europeans, who unshackled Europe from a thousand years of war and bitterness, and enabled Europe's youth to substitute the hostility of their forefathers with brotherhood.
It would be wise to learn from their experience, to dream about a Middle East in which its countries will depart from the conflicts of their parents on behalf of peace for their children. Establish a modern regional economy that would fight new and common challenges: hunger, desertification, sickness and terror. Promote scientific cooperation to improve the standard of living and secure quality of life.
The common God of all is the God of peace, not the God of war.
Shimon Peres's legacy is the example that peace can be achieved throughout the Middle East and that all of us can live side by side. It is telling that Peres, this champion of democracy and reconciliation in the Middle East, received his Nobel Prize for peace alongside Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, demonstrating what can be achieved when world leaders can work together for a common good. Israel has lost one of its finest leaders and the world one of its finest, fiercest and most compelling advocates for peace. Shimon Peres was truly an icon for Israelis and for peace. He will be sorely missed by the people he led as Prime Minister and President.
Olev-hasholem. May he rest in peace.
I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Isaacs, as I am sure I will with the remarks of all the other people who speak on this motion about Shimon Peres. I will not repeat much of the information that was provided to the House by the member for Isaacs; suffice to say that Shimon Peres was one of the greats of Israel's existence, from 1948, and one of the greats in the world in my lifetime. I had the great honour of meeting him many times over the course of my now seven trips to Israel—probably the member for Melbourne Ports is the only person in the House who has been to Israel more times than I have. In the very early time after I came into the parliament, in January 1994, I met Shimon Peres when he was the foreign minister, and then I met him again over several times that I visited Israel. He was in different guises, as either a foreign minister, a leader or, more recently, President of Israel.
Shimon Peres's contribution to Israel and to the world should never be underestimated. We use great hyperbole in this House to describe many things. It certainly is not hyperbole to describe Shimon Peres as one of the shapers of the world and obviously the state of Israel in the last 60 or 70 years—besides the fact that he served in the Knesset for 47 years.
He was a parliamentarian and a minister in many different guises—finance, immigration, foreign affairs. He served as Prime Minister twice. He was the leader of the Labor Party. He was the President of Israel. And he changed over that period of time from a leader of the resistance—if you like—to rule by others, to one of the main builders of the early state of Israel under David Ben-Gurion. He was a builder of the defence industry, particularly in Israel. Much of what Israel boasts today in terms of technology—its aerospace industry, its naval industry, its defence industry in general—can be put down to the early roots that were started by Shimon Peres.
And then, later in life, he was a great advocate for peace. Shimon Peres always used to say that when you are strong you do not feel the need to negotiate, and when you are weak you do not feel you can afford to negotiate, but in fact it is when you are strong that you have to negotiate. And he did that and lived it as the foreign minister, having been disappointingly let down earlier in his career over a peace agreement with Jordan. When he returned in 1992 to be the foreign minister in Israel, his two great achievements over that period were, firstly, the Oslo accords with the Palestinian Liberation Organization, for which of course, as the member for Isaacs has said, he won the Nobel Prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat; and secondly, very well-known in the Middle East but perhaps less well known in the world, the peace agreement with the Kingdom of Jordan—two very significant achievements, and at a time when Israel was very strong. It is still strong, but, at a time when Israel was stronger than it had perhaps been for decades, he chose that time to make peace with Israel's enemies.
At that time in 1994 when I visited—and he was quite surprised to discover that I was a member of parliament, because I was only 25 years old; he found that very hard to believe; in fact, most people did at the time—there was a sense of great optimism in Israel about the Oslo peace accords and the opportunity that they presented for the Palestinians and the Jewish Israelis to live peacefully together and to expand together. I think it is a disappointment, 30 years later, that those great opportunities have not been realised. Perhaps lesser politicians than Shimon Peres have been the hurdle for that ongoing Oslo peace accord process to reach its full potential.
It is a pity, a great pity, that Shimon Peres's great dreams for Israel were not entirely realised in his lifetime. But he can certainly pass on into a better place knowing that he left Israel a much stronger and better country than he found it and left the world a better place than he found it. For those of us who serve in public life and seek a career in public life, if you can say that and it can be a genuine claim, it is a great success. I also know his son, and I pass on my condolences to him and the rest of the Peres family. As the member for Isaacs said, may he rest in peace.
'Optimists and pessimists die the same way. They just live differently. I prefer to live as an optimist.' That was the byword, the life choice, of Shimon Peres, zichrono livracha, who died at 93. His lifelong work is summarised by something else that he said:
Find a cause that's larger than yourself and then give your life to it.
He certainly did that. His political career saw him hold all major offices of state and rebound from remarkable defeats. He was a protege, as was just said, of Israel's founding father, David Ben-Gurion, and was first elected to parliament in 1949. He held every major cabinet post—defence, finance and foreign affairs. Remarkably, despite having no military experience, he was made Minister of Defense in his 20s. During the second of his three terms as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peres shared the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize with then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for their work on the Oslo accords. A year later Peres, in one of the great tragedies of history, had to take over from Prime Minister Rabin after Rabin was assassinated.
However, in domestic political life in Israel he was not always successful. He suffered a number of electoral defeats. When competing for election as Prime Minister he lost four and tied one. In 2007, however—and this is what I really want to focus on—he was chosen for the ceremonial position of president. He was, in fact, the world's oldest head of state when he retired in July 2014 at the age of 90.
He was an early advocate of a Palestinian state parallel to Israel. That has always been Australia's policy—a two-state solution, which is what we voted for in 1948. He could not solve the problem of where such a state would be located or Palestinian leaderships' inability to accept so many of the offers that had been made to them. He said in a rare bit of pessimism—maybe realism:
If a problem has no solution, it may not be a problem, but a fact—not to be solved, but to be coped with over time.
He also had a profound sense of his own people's place in history. Shimon Peres said:
Look, we have existed for 4,000 years—2,000 years in diaspora, in exile. Nobody in the Middle East speaks their original language but Israel. When we started 64 years ago, we were 650,000 people. So, you know, we are maybe swimming a little bit against the stream, but we continue to swim.
I return to his trademark optimism and his profound and incredible futuristic imagination—that was my experience of meeting him, as the members for Isaacs and Sturt have said. His profound knowledge of technological advances was almost guru like coming from a man who was in his 80s or 90s. He said once:
In Israel, a land lacking in natural resources, we learned to appreciate our greatest national advantage: our minds. Through creativity and innovation, we transformed barren deserts into flourishing fields and pioneered new frontiers in science and technology.
He had an incredible interview once with McKinsey. Just a few years ago, when he was in his 90s, he said:
The last two decades we have witnessed the greatest revolution since Genesis. States have lost their importance and strength. The old theories—from Adam Smith to Karl Marx—have lost their value because they are based on things like land, labour, and wealth. All of that has been replaced by science. Ideas are now more important than materials. And ideas are unpredictable. Science knows no customs, no borders. It’s immeasurable, unpredictable, unprecedented. It doesn’t depend on distances or stop at a given point.
Science creates a world where individuals can play the role of the collective. Two boys create Google. One boy creates Facebook. Another individual creates Apple. These gentlemen changed the world without political parties or armies or fortunes. No one anticipated this. And they themselves did not know what would happen as a result of their thoughts. So we are all surprised.
It is a new world. You may have the strongest army—but it cannot conquer ideas, it cannot conquer knowledge. Now when you try to anticipate what is possible, you must go to books or laboratories, not simply to the stock exchange. You must exercise your brain. And you can keep your brain fresh if you use it.
I believe profoundly that that was a message for Australia about how we ought to approach our economic future and our technological future. I believe Australia's engagement with Israel is actually prompted by many of the people here having encounters, including with Peres. Peres astonished many of the Australian politicians I have met. You would turn up at the President's house and you would get this futuristic look at the world by someone in their 80s and 90s who outlined to you what could be and not what is.
I would like to conclude my tribute to him and his family and the incredible role he played in the maintenance of the Jewish state with a personal life lesson that I think is very important for all people who are in public life to remember. Shimon Peres said:
The most important thing in life is to dare. The most complicated thing in life is to be afraid. The smartest thing in the world is to try to be a moral person.
May his memory be a blessing.
It is a pleasure to rise here in the House to pass some comments on the passing of Shimon Peres, a great global statesman and someone instrumental in the foundation and the survival of Israel. Shimon is one of Israel's longest serving politicians and, by all means, one of its most distinguished—the first person, I believe, to have served as both Prime Minister and, indeed, President of the Jewish state in the Holy Land. Born in 1923 in Wieniawa, Poland, which is now in Belarus, he immigrated to what is Israel with his family at age 11. Yet is it more Shimon Peres's roles in the four great fights—and, indeed, in the Entebbe raid—that so defined Israel and so ensured its state and its survival as a nation and its growth now as one of the great nations of the world. Indeed, Shimon Peres and, probably, Moshe Dayan are two of the most responsible statesmen and war fighters who helped guide Israel to the place it was and is today.
It was David Ben-Gurion in 1947 who conscripted Shimon Peres to the Haganah, the defence force which would become the foundation of the Israeli Defense Forces we know today. Of course, Moshe Dayan had been with the Haganah since he was 11. He had fought against the British and with the British, was jailed by the British and went back into the special forces with the British. Moshe Dayan would continue alongside Shimon Peres, sometimes as friends—sometimes, perhaps, less so. Shimon was assigned responsibility for manpower and arms in '47, an activity he continued during the early part of the war of independence in 1948. In '48, he was appointed head of Israel's navy and at war's end he assumed the position of the director of the defence ministry delegation in the United States. Shimon Peres was there when the modern state of Israel was found on the traditional Jewish Holy Land. In 1953, at the age of 29, he was appointed by Prime Minister Ben-Gurion as a director general of the defence ministry—we would probably call that the secretary of Defence; Israel's Dennis Richardson, heaven forbid—a position that he held for the next six years up until 1959.
Israel's second fight occurred in 1956 in the Sinai—a fight that would be led ostensibly by Moshe Dayan, albeit planned in many ways by Shimon Peres; an extraordinary fight where the Sinai was captured by the Israeli forces. During this period from '53 to '59, Shimon Peres would shape that relationship between Israel and France which became so important in the early days and established Israel's aircraft industries as well as its fledgling nuclear program. In '59, Peres would be elected to the Knesset and he would remain in the parliament until elected President in June 2007, an extraordinary 48 years in one of the most democratic parliaments in the world—some would argue far too democratic—and certainly the only democratic parliament in the Middle East.
From '59 to '65, he served as deputy defence minister and prepared the Israeli defence ministry and the IDF for what became the 1967 six-day fight. The fight saw the parachute regiment—hail the paras!—retake Jerusalem for the first time. The first man to worship at the Wailing Wall was a parachutist, a young digger, who fought his way through to the Wailing Wall. For the first time in 2,000 years, a Jewish man met there at the Wailing Wall, parachute beret in hand and Uzi slung over his shoulder. It is interesting that the paras had a disproportionate amount of influence in that '67 fight during that six-day war—the paras were something like three per cent of the Israeli Defence Force but 20 per cent of the casualties. They played quite an extraordinary role. Shimon Peres prepared the IDF in the early days for that fight—a fight so ably led, again, by Moshe Dayan.
From 1970 to '74, Shimon Peres served as the minister of transport and communications, again preparing that vital architecture for the surprise attack on the Yom Kippur War in 1973–again, a war we saw Moshe Dayan in as minister for defence. Shimon Peres replaced him and, then from 1974, he was minister for defence until 1977. Again, as minister for defence, he was intimately involved in the Entebbe raid, which was an extraordinarily daring raid to recover citizens of a plane in Entebbe in Uganda. I have been to Uganda many times as a former director of the world's largest orphan care program, Watoto, and have been to the old airport at Entebbe many times. The new airport is built but the old one still bears the battle scars and the bullet wounds from what was a daring, lightning and audacious raid by the Israelis.
Shimon Peres was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994, for the Declaration of Principles with the PLO in September '93 with Rabin and Arafat. And, in October 1994, he was there when the treaty of peace with Jordan was signed. This was a man who had been intimately involved not just in the four great fights that have ensured Israel's survival of that nation on their land, the holy land in the Middle East, but in an age of peace. He spent his later years working towards peace and the opportunity for peace in the Middle East.
It is right and proper that this parliament should give an opportunity for its members to make some statements regarding such a fine statesman like Shimon Peres. I thank those who have spoken before me for their words. They have, I think, brought Shimon Peres's legacy to life. I certainly share their sentiments on both sides of the House. I pass my respects onto Shimon Peres's relatives and family, and I am thankful for the role of this man in the creation of modern Israel, in the defence of modern Israel and all that he has done to ensure peace.
I join with my colleagues on emphasising the privilege that it is to speak on this motion in relation to someone who was a truly great statesman, an international statesman. I think we often use that term 'great man' casually and loosely, but in this case we are truly acknowledging the benchmark of what a great man, a great statesman, truly was and is. Looking at Shimon Peres's life, I think none of us in the politics of Australia would understand just how existential it was. The life's work of Shimon Peres in terms of the preservation of not only his very state on so many occasions but the very survival of his people as a whole. It is poignant to note that, whereas he and his immediate family left Poland in 1932 to go to Israel, all of his remaining extended family in the Polish town of Vishneve were annihilated in the Holocaust. All of those members of his family, in the same incident, where the Jewish population of the town of Vishneve were rounded up and taken to the local synagogue and burnt alive in the town synagogue. Those times presented not only a challenge for the very survival of his people, but, then following on that, the survival of the nation through the period of 1948, the existential battles '67 and '73 and onwards.
As has been mentioned by previous speakers, he is owed a great deal for his role in creating the sinews by which Israel was able to defend itself and stay alive during that time. In particular, this was a great man of the Israeli Labor movement—a product of the kibbutz movement. I was privileged to have spent time on a kibbutz in Ein Herod Meuchad, up in Emek Yizra'el and the valley of the Galilee. This is a movement that has produced so many great people in the history of that nation, invested in the state and invested in the collective principle that has helped keep that state alive. Through his life, he demonstrated the values of the kibbutz movement.
His role has been mentioned not only in developing the political frameworks, the international relationships and the defence industries et cetera that helped keep the state alive but also in the Entebbe mission. My colleague from Canning will probably have more to say as he has probably studied this mission in depth in his career. Shimon Peres's role in that mission was absolutely instrumental. As the defence minister at the time he formed the crisis committee to look into the options for the rescue of a number of Israeli hostages taken captive by terrorists in Entebbe, in Uganda. He was involved in working through the detail of that mission with the nominal commander of the mission, Yonatan Netanyahu, and then took the detail of that mission to Prime Minister Rabin and convinced Rabin to back the mission. Rabin was very uncertain about using a military option in this case, but Peres was across the detail and had worked through the detail and was convinced of the viability of the mission and the audacity of it, which was borne out in the success of that operation, which has become quite a hallmark in the conduct of those kinds of special operations and hostage rescue missions.
Apart from that, through all that period of war and grief, he learnt many lessons that fuelled his impetus and his motivation in the cause of peace, once the existence and survival of the state of Israel were secured. There is no man ever in the history of the Middle East's difficult relationships and histories who has put more effort into the cause of peace. He brought to the peace process the same boldness that he brought to the design and execution of the Entebbe mission. It has been mentioned that through Oslo and the peace agreement with Jordan he was able to be awarded and afforded the honour of the Nobel Prize.
But one of the honours he greatly esteemed beyond that was being made an honorary sheikh by the Hura Bedouin of the Negev. He adored the Negev and put a lot of effort into looking after the Bedouin community in the Negev. He was very much a fan of his relationship with the Bedouin and was honoured for that relationship.
That was emblematic of his ability to forge relationships and bridges across the divides of the region—across internal and other state relationship divides. As my good friend the member for Melbourne Ports mentioned, he took that through to his involvement in the creation of the Start-Up Nation dynamic, which we have all learnt to admire and study in detail for the benefits and lessons it has for Australia. His real interest in being involved in the Start-Up Nation process was to ensure that the benefits of that economic development and the opportunities that the new economy offered were spread across all of the citizens of Israel, and hopefully the region—the Israeli-Arabs, the Palestinians and all the neighbours of the region. He felt that this opportunity was there to be exploited to help build those bridges and relationships. He took that forward, too, in the situation of developing the sharing of water resources and other issues that are central to creating a viable relationship amongst the nations of that area.
He tried hard to make the peace process with the Palestinians work after Oslo. That included energetically pursuing investment on behalf of the Palestinians, right around the world, and understanding the key role of the peace dividend and economic prosperity in the role of ensuring and bedding down peace in the area.
All of this was in the face of the massive wave of terror and bombings by the terrorists who attempted to derail that Oslo peace process, but he never lost his focus, his perseverance, his optimism and his determination to pursue that process. He also had to deal with the debilitation and the disappointment of watching some of that investment disappear into the extremely corrupt circumstances that existed amongst some of the players in the Palestinian Authority at the time. A lot of that money and investment would end up in Swiss bank accounts. And then, of course, there was the really disappointing situation of the Hamas takeover of Gaza after 2006 and the systematic dismantling of all the democratic institutions that we had all been working hard to build in the developing Palestinian Authority, which would have been the secret to them achieving an effective and viable statehood, and which I had been very pleased to be involved in. As a member of a strategy group, I convinced the Howard government to deploy an Australian lieutenant colonel to become a part of General Ward's security sector reform that was doing great work over there at the time, all of which was brought undone and abandoned because of the Hamas takeover of the Gaza strip.
But Shimon Peres was a great friend of Australia. He, along with all Israelis, remembered fondly and very well the Australian troop presence in Palestine during the Second World War and the First World War. In fact, both my grandfathers were beneficiaries of the welfare arrangements that the Schulte Jewish community provided to our thousands of Australian troops. I was very grateful for that. My grandfathers had very difficult circumstances to endure in the campaigns in Syria and Lebanon and the Western Desert, and very much appreciated the support of the Jewish community. But they also really appreciated the friendliness and engagement with the Australians at the time.
It was a very special privilege to have met President Peres, too, as part of a parliamentary group in 2010. He was very generous to us with his time, and it fell to me to thank him for that. I did highlight at the time the difference in attitudes to politics in Israel and Australia, noting that the old saying there was that you get two Israelis together and they form three political parties; I said, 'In Australia you get two Australians together and they have a party!' I also highlighted that his was a precious voice of reason in a world full of increasingly strident and irrational voices. It is extremely sad that we have lost that precious voice of reason. It is incumbent on all of us to work hard to help make up for that loss.
His greatest virtue was that he was not a prisoner of the past. He understood learning the lessons of the past. Not becoming a prisoner of the past is no mean feat in the Middle East. He always looked forward and was never swayed from his path to peace, no matter how hopeless this has looked. His is a life-affirming example of dreaming large, but in his case it was matched with the practical skills to realise those dreams. With his passing, we are obliged to pick up the torch he has passed to us and pursue peace with all the relentless optimism he exhibited all his life.
It is a privilege to rise today alongside my colleagues, the members for Fadden, Melbourne Ports and Eden-Monaro, and also share my thoughts on this great man. Shimon Peres might best be known as a tireless advocate for a broad Middle East peace that would benefit all peoples of that tortured region, but to focus on this aspect of his life alone would be to miss the man. Peres understood that peace, whilst the highest ideal, had to be first secured by force of arms. He was a leader of Israel through many of its darkest hours and helped guide it to become a prosperous, flourishing democracy. In the spirit of King David, Peres understood that both the shepherd's crook and the warrior's sword are necessary to the task of nation-building. Historian Timothy Snyder has described the cataclysm that engulfed the Jews of Eastern Europe during the Second World War in his magisterial and aptly named history entitled Bloodlands. The 'bloodlands' directly touched the soul of Shimon Peres with terrible effect.
On 30 June 1942 the entire Jewish community of Vishnev—his hometown in Poland—were frogmarched to the courtyard of the local synagogue and burnt alive by the Nazis. Every member of Shimon Peres' extended family—including his grandfather—perished. That abomination gave him a hard-nosed understanding that, at certain times and in certain circumstances, armed force is the only moral option. So in 1947 it was Shimon Peres who was dispatched to Europe with the mission of acquiring arms for the nascent Jewish state. It was these weapons that allowed the Jews of Israel to beat back attacks by not only the Palestinian Arab irregulars, but also the invading armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq. Indeed, after the establishment of Israel in 1948, Peres would play a fundamental role in developing Israel's defence capabilities. Under his supervision the IDF would become a dominant regional power, gain nuclear capability, and establish its outstanding international reputation.
By 1976 Shimon Peres had risen to the post of defence minister, serving in the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. When a gang of Arab and German left-wing terrorists hijacked an Air France flight bearing 250 Jews, Shimon Peres was confronted by a mammoth dilemma of moral leadership. The hijackers were demanding the release of 53 terrorist murderers from prison, as well as a ransom of $5 million—a hefty sum in those days. The question was: should the short-term interest of saving 246 Jewish hostages take precedence over the longer term interest of the innocent lives these killers would surely take if allowed to go free?
This was the question that hung like a cloud over the negotiations with the hijackers. But in retrospect we know that Shimon Peres and his ministerial colleagues were really playing for time, and were using that grace period to plan and organise a rescue mission whose ambition was only matched by its audacity. Operation Thunderbolt is unlike any other special operation in modern history. Israel took a huge national and strategic risk in rescuing their people from the hands of terrorists at Entebbe. This was an act of statecraft that required vision, nerve and tremendous resolve. Consider the operational and logistical challenges the IDF had to overcome to deliver Israeli troops onto the target. They had to fly the assault force across the international flight path over the Red Sea and remain undetected by Egyptian, Sudanese and Saudi radar. The Lockheed C-130 Hercules aircraft flew low to the ground, sometimes as low as 100 metres, to avoid detection. These aircraft, loaded to their maximum capacity—an operational risk all of its own—had to be refuelled in Kenya before continuing to Entebbe itself.
Consider the challenge facing the ground forces. With limited intelligence and after an incredibly demanding tactical flight, where many were airsick, they had to commence the assault on the terminal almost immediately after disembarking the aircraft. They went straight into a gunfight with the terrorists, in the middle of the night, in darkness, without the aids of modern soldiering, such as body armour and night vision. Consider the task of extracting the assault force under fire and all the hostages for the flight back to Israel. This occurred in 53 minutes from landing to take-off—an incredible feat of statecraft and arms.
There was significant strategic and operational risk woven throughout the fabric of Operation Thunderbolt—risks grave enough that most political decision-makers, in this day and age, would balk at an operation of this audacity. Even the Israeli hostages, once the roar and din of gunfire had ceased in the airport terminal, were surprised beyond belief to hear the Hebrew voices of the IDF soldiers cut through the night.
Shimon Peres was not faint-hearted at this moment in Israel's history. He had strongly advocated for this operation to the Israeli Prime Minister and the cabinet. The most recent book on Operation Thunderbolt documents his words to the Prime Minister on the morning of 3 July 1976:
It is Israel that has lectured the world against giving in to terrorism. If we give in now our prestige will suffer greatly. Should we ignore the fact that the hijackers have conducted a 'selection,' separating the Jews from the others aboard the plane? If the operation succeeds, the mood of the entire country will suddenly and dramatically improve. It's true that the operation will put our finest soldiers at risk. But we have always been ready to risk our lives to save a large number of lives by using our own forces, and without recourse to outside assistance."
Operation Thunderbolt took place because men like Shimon Peres were prepared to take a stand for principle and demonstrate resolve with force of arms. The IDF Chief of the General Staff at the time, Lieutenant General Mordechai Gur, credits Peres for his advocacy and courage and singled out the one man 'whose determination made it happen—the Minister of Defense'. He went on further:
I don't know if it's possible to apportion credit among those responsible for the decision to undertake this operation, but if it is, the biggest share of the credit goes to the defense minister—
Shimon Peres. Thus the Entebbe operation constituted a victory not only of good over evil but also of unconventional brilliance over conventional banality. It was a victory for the free world, where democratic statesmen were willing to take national and strategic risk in the pursuit of justice and the preservation of innocent life.
Shimon Peres's contribution to this operation as Minister of Defense was decisive and serves as a beacon in the present for those charged with defending democracy, human rights and those who cannot fight for themselves. It reminds us that when we are confronted with evil—as we are in the Middle East today, with the scourge of Islamic State—principled action, steely resolve and visionary leadership can overcome great odds and conquer even the most determined enemies of the free world.
Israel has lost a lifelong servant of the Jewish people in Shimon Peres, and today we honour his memory and pass our condolences to Israel.
I thank the member for Canning for that heartfelt and powerful address and also acknowledge my colleagues and friends on the other side of parliament—the member for Isaacs, the member for Melbourne Ports and the member for Eden-Monaro—and of course my colleagues the member for Sturt, the member for Fadden and the member for Goldstein, who is soon to speak, and say, isn't this a wonderful thing? Members from both sides of the political divide have put aside any partisan differences to salute a career and a life that has been full of achievements and goodness, not just for the people of Israel but for the Jewish community around the world. In speaking on Shimon Peres, a man who died on 28 September this year in Israel, age 93, we remember somebody who really made a difference.
Shimon Peres was a remarkable office holder. He was first elected to the Knesset in 1959. During that time he became the longest-serving member of the Knesset in Israel's political history. He held so many positions, including Minister of Transportation, Minister of Finance, Minister of Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs, and of course became Israel's eighth Prime Minister in 1984, then serving again in that office, and became the ninth President of the state of Israel, serving for seven years when he reached that position in 2007.
His achievements also saw him lauded across the world with many awards. The French gave him their highest honour, the Legion d'Honneur, as commander. He received from the United Kingdom an honorary knighthood—Knight Grand Cross—and the Order of St Michael and St George from Queen Elizabeth II. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, alongside Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, for his role in the Oslo Accords. And President Obama gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012—the United States's highest civilian honour—for his meritorious contributions to world peace.
But his story was a remarkable personal one. He migrated to then Palestine in 1934. All of his remaining relatives in Poland were murdered during the Holocaust. In fact, Barack Obama, in his wonderful address on Mount Herzl, at the funeral of Shimon Perez, reminded us that when he was still a teenager Peres's grandfather was burned alive by the Nazis in the town in which Shimon was born. And when he reached then Palestine he became one of Israel's founders, and now Israel has lost the last of its founders. At age 29 he became Director-General of the Ministry of Defense—the youngest person to hold this position—and did so much to help build Israel's defence capability, particularly the relationships he developed with the French government.
But it was his values and his moral clarity that stood Shimon Peres out among the rest. He once said:
The message of the Jewish people to mankind is that faith and moral vision can triumph over all adversity.
And he made a very powerful point, which needs to be recognised in the context in which Israel lives, often in a sea of hate and hostility. Peres said:
The Jewish people weren't born to rule another people. From the very first day we are against slaves and masters.
That signalled what was his life's work, which of course was to bring security and stability to Israel but, clearly, to also bring peace to his people.
Not only did he have a moral compass and a large number of achievements to his name, but also he managed to develop wonderful relationships with other world leaders to advance Israel's interest. President Obama referred to the fact that he was the 10th US President to play host to Peres over the course of Peres's life. I will refer to some of the testimonies given on his death. Theresa May called him:
… a visionary and courageous statesman, who worked relentlessly for peace and never lost hope that this would one day be achievable.
Tony Blair, on the other side of politics, described him as:
… a political giant, a statesman who will rank as one of the foremost of this era or any era, and someone I loved deeply.
Tony Blair: 'someone I loved deeply'. Ban Ki-moon said about Peres:
Even in the most difficult hours, he remained an optimist about the prospects for reconciliation and peace.
And Obama:
Shimon Peres was a soldier for Israel, for the Jewish people, for justice, for peace, and for the belief that we can be true to our best selves—to the very end of our time on Earth, and in the legacy that we leave to others.
Wonderful testimonies to a wonderful man.
But one of my favourite stories goes back to 1986 when then UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher played host to Shimon Peres. She said, in welcoming Shimon Peres to No. 10 Downing Street:
I am not sure whether all our guests here tonight know that the last time you fell into our hands was in 1945.
We caught you on a camel in a restricted military area and locked you up for two weeks.
History doesn't relate what happened to the camel.
She went on to say:
Israel is small in geography but large in history.
But perhaps even more impressive than the achievements is the spirit of your people: pioneering, brave, resourceful, determined; an example of how indomitable will can overcome almost any problem.
That very fact makes it all the more urgent that you who have built a nation should also be able to build peace.
She went on to say to Shimon Peres:
… your personal reputation as a man of peace, a man dedicated to seeking that peace with Israel's neighbours, is itself grounds for greater hope.
I never met Shimon Peres, but isn't it interesting that the people who did have such wonderful things to say about him.
My friend and colleague the member for Melbourne Ports pointed out that Peres visited Australia in March 1998. During that time he was hosted by John Howard. John Howard, a giant in this country, said:
It is a special honour to be here this evening in the company of one of Israel' s most highly regarded statesmen, Shimon Peres. In various capacities over the fifty years of Israel's statehood, including three periods as prime minister, you have been an instrumental figure in setting Israel's course for the future. Your presence here tonight brings a special significance and lustre to these anniversary celebrations.
Peres reciprocated that affection from Howard when he described the relationship between the Jewish state and Australia as one of love, saying, 'Australia is a beloved country in Israel.' Those were the words of then Prime Minister Howard, and they were also the words of Tony Blair, Theresa May, President Obama and Margaret Thatcher. We have also heard from my colleagues in this place about what a wonderful contribution Shimon Peres made to Israel's security through his boldness and activities—sending Israeli commandos into Entebbe; the work he did rescuing Jews from Ethiopia; the way he embraced science and technology; and the way in which, as Obama says in his speech:
As a young man, he had fed his village by working in the fields during the day, but then defending it by carrying a rifle at night.
Few people on this earth have had a life as full and as important as Shimon Peres. He helped make Israel the country it is today. We salute him for his contribution to the state of Israel; we salute him for his defence of the values and the freedoms that we hold dear; and we salute him for the relationship that he built with Australia, among many other countries. We in this place, despite our political differences, have an obligation to ensure that his dream of peace between Israel and its neighbours one day becomes a reality.
Can I start my address by echoing the sentiments and the words of so many of my parliamentary colleagues from this side and the other side of parliament. When you get the members for Isaacs, Sturt, Melbourne Ports, Fadden, Eden-Monaro, Kooyong and Canning all on the same page, it is a reflection of the unity of the substance of the issue—paying homage and respect to the life and the times and the achievements of Shimon Peres.
It is an honour to rise and speak on the condolence motion not just on behalf of myself but also on behalf of the people of Goldstein, a significant number of whom are part of Melbourne's Jewish community.
In the speeches that have been provided today there are already so many eloquent words that have encapsulated his life and his legacy, and I do not want to unnecessarily repeat them. But I do just want to acknowledge how strong some of these speeches have been in terms of recognising his achievements.
Shimon Peres's political leadership and contribution spanned so many offices held within that country. Nobody would dispute that to hold the positions of opposition leader, Prime Minister and President is an incredible achievement in its own right. But power is only worth the extent to which you use it—and to try and build the type of country that Israel could be so it can provide peace and security for so many people who live in, at that time, a relatively new state.
At the time of his retirement he was the oldest head of state around and he was the last link to Israel's founding generation, something that cannot be ignored. We all realise the very difficult circumstances that Israel has always faced in its time in its modern existence. Yes, there have always been times of conflict, but it is important to recognise somebody's legacy, particularly as their contribution to peace in the Middle East. During Peres's term as foreign minister in the second Rabin administration, he was in charge, in cooperation with Yitzhak Rabin, of the peace process with the Palestinians.
He directed the covert negotiations in Oslo. At the end of those negotiations an agreement was signed by a foreign ministry director Uri Savir, and Palestinian Authority representative Abu Ala, in the presence of Shimon Peres. This signing and the letters of mutual recognition exchanged by Rabin and Arafat led to the signing of the declaration of principles regarding interim self-governing arrangements at a festive ceremony held at the White House by Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat and US President Bill Clinton.
These sorts of achievements have been discussed all throughout the morning, but they have resonated of course not just in this place in words and rhetoric but also across the world. I guess a lot of people have been asking how is it that somebody who is known for their contribution not just in terms of their sometimes necessarily hawkish behaviour can also have dove-ish views. To quote a Time article that went through the life and times of Shimon Peres, 'He has come to believe that peace with the Palestinians was in the end in Israel's national interests'. He recognised that there was an important part of having a two-state solution, to enable a situation where Israel could survive but also could work with its neighbours to achieve peace. That article also stated:
If it weren't for Israel's nuclear program, Peres argues, the historic Oslo Accords he helped negotiate with the Palestinians wouldn't have been possible.
That is the contribution not just of somebody who is able to be in a position to set the tone of their country, help build it, preserve it and secure it; also to be a pragmatist about how to build its future. That is as much what we pay honour for today as well.
In particular, I was moved by a quote by Shimon Peres in terms of the vision for his country and what can be achieved. He said: 'Optimists and pessimists die the exact same death, but they live very different lives.' That is in the end what we are honouring today. We all have our own contribution to make in this place and across the world, but often the conclusion of our work and our life lives well beyond us. So Shimon Peres' legacy is one that now rests with eternity. But it has been to make a contribution to the building of the state of Israel, to secure it and to live well beyond him.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House of the discharge and appointment of Senators to certain committees: Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Senator Ketter has been appointed; and Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—Senator Farrell has been discharged and Senator Dastyari has been appointed.
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government is committed to implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in ways that deliver the best social, economic and environmental outcomes for the basin and its many industries and communities. Water is essential to our agricultural production and the associated wealth that it supports in regional communities and the nation. The Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2016 provides more time for the basin jurisdictions to work together to maximise the benefits of the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, a key element of the basin reforms. This will ensure that we get the reforms right. It will ensure the reforms are equitable and that they support the health of our valuable rivers, while also ensuring the community and industries that rely on the rivers flourish into the future.
In 2012, the Basin Plan set out sustainable diversion limits at both basin-wide and individual catchment scale. At the time, the sustainable diversion limits represented the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's best judgement of a triple bottom-line balance between healthy rivers and strong communities and a prosperous basin economy.
Before the Basin Plan was finalised, Basin water ministers requested that the Basin Plan include a mechanism to allow flexibility in setting the sustainable diversion limits in ways that further enhance social, economic and environmental outcomes. As a result, the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism was incorporated into the plan to enable the Basin-wide sustainable diversion limit for surface water of 10,873 gigalitres per year to be changed by up to five per cent.
These adjustments can be achieved through two types of measures: supply measures and efficiency measures. Supply measures are projects that enable environmental outcomes equivalent to those in the Basin Plan to be achieved using less environmental water. The bigger the supply contribution from the sustainable diversion limit adjustments, the smaller the remaining amount of water that needs to be recovered. Efficiency measures, on the other hand, are intended to enhance Basin Plan environmental outcomes through infrastructure projects that recover more environmental water without adverse socioeconomic impacts.
Basin states are looking at options for easing river bottlenecks that limit how much water can flow through the system at any one time, in order to achieve the Basin Plan environmental outcomes with less water. Basin state governments are continuing to work through the feasibility of these projects with landholders to ensure that any adverse third-party impacts can be avoided or otherwise mitigated to the satisfaction of landholders and communities. I was happy, recently, to travel to southern New South Wales and northern Victoria to examine some of these issues.
On 5 May 2016, Basin governments reached a major Basin Plan milestone by formally notifying the Murray-Darling Basin Authority of 36 supply and efficiency measures for consideration under the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism. The notified package is intended to improve the social, economic and environmental outcomes of the Basin Plan. The authority is now modelling the effect of these supply measures to determine how they will affect the sustainable diversion limits. While notification of this package of measures was a significant step, Basin governments think that more can be done. This bill will enable us to do that.
The bill amends the Basin Plan to allow states to notify a second package of sustainable diversion limit adjustment measures by 30 June 2017. This provides additional time for Basin jurisdictions to work up new projects that augment the first package of measures. In setting this timeframe, the Australian government is conscious that Basin governments are considering the potential for complementary measures, such as measures to control carp and boost native fish populations, to be considered under the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism. There is potential for significant environmental outcomes to be achieved through measures other than simply adding more water. Should Basin governments agree to proceed in this way, the timeframe set out in this bill will be sufficient for the development of such measures by Basin jurisdictions and for the subsequent assessment of these measures by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.
Of course, when undertaking reform as critical as the Basin Plan, timing is critical. The Basin Plan sustainable diversion limits are to come into effect from 1 July 2019. To achieve this, accredited water resource plans need to be in place, and remaining water recovery targets need to be met. These processes all take time, and certainty on the adjustment of sustainable diversion limits is required as early as possible. Therefore, while it is important to allow more time to get the most out of adjustment mechanisms, it is also imperative that Basin jurisdictions are afforded the time and certainty they need to complete their water resources plans by 2019.
For this reason, the bill requires that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority present its determination of a proposed sustainable diversion limit adjustment to the Commonwealth minister by 15 December 2017. A determination deadline of 15 December 2017 will ensure that the adjustment operates in sufficient time to provide certainty for those key processes that depend on a timely outcome from the adjustment mechanism. To meet this deadline, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will need to impose cut-off dates for project amendments well beforehand. However, the Australian government remains confident that all Basin jurisdictions will continue to work cooperatively, and with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, in securing the best possible outcome.
To ensure Basin jurisdictions are able to develop a suite of further projects by 30 June 2017, they must have certainty that the second notification will occur. This bill expedites the amendment process in sufficient time to provide this certainty. This bill continues the government's commitment to sensible and considered water reform. It strikes the appropriate balance between providing more time to deliver the best possible outcomes for the adjustment mechanism and, at the same time, achieving the best possible outcomes for Basin industries, for Basin communities and for healthy, working Basin rivers.
The Australian government is determined to implement the Basin Plan in a manner that ensures the social and economic wellbeing of our Basin communities while achieving environmental objectives. Farmers are the primary environmental stewards of the land, and no-one knows the creeks, rivers, wetlands and flood plains of the Basin better than those communities that call the Basin home. It is vital that we work with them to ensure the sustainable use of water resources into the future.
This is an issue that I have lived with all my life, having lived in the Basin all my life. It is vitally important that we understand that the people we talk to about these issues are not just the farmers who own the water licences but are also the towns and the townspeople who rely on an agricultural irrigation community and expect us to do the very best job. It is these people more than any other group who would be affected if we get this wrong, because these are the people who are not able to sell their assets and do not get the chance to move anywhere—they are just left with our problems if we get it wrong.
I am pleased to support the Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2016. Today I would like to focus my remarks on the management of a central piece of water infrastructure in the Murray Darling Basin—specifically the management of the Hume Dam.
In Indi we follow a very clear process when addressing the issues of the electorate. When constituents raise issues, we make a commitment to represent their interests, to ask relevant questions, to raise issues in parliament and to provide an opportunity where it is appropriate to resolve issues at the local level. Today I would like to share with parliament an example of this process delivering practical and significant outcomes for landholders in the Murray Valley. I acknowledge the presence in the House today of my neighbour and colleague, the member for Farrer, and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.
We had a problem with the Hume Dam and flooding. We were able to resolve it locally in a very satisfactory way, and I am delighted to acknowledge the work of the people who played a part in that. This year has been very wet in north-east Victoria. We have had significantly more rain than in an average year. In October this year, constituents who are landholders in the Murray Valley below the Hume weir came to me with a very clear message regarding their concerns about the management of the Hume Dam. They made a strong case. The effects of the water releases have been significant, and I have been deeply concerned about the long-term impact if the problems are not addressed.
It is important to note that I am not alone in receiving concerns from landholders. The member for Farrer, Sussan Ley, also received approaches from Murray River farmers and has acknowledged that there needs to be better communication, saying:
It is an MDBA decision, it's not a decision of government, but I think there is an information gap so I am committed to asking the MDBA … and then there can be a bit more understanding on both sides …
Landholders' concerns were twofold: firstly, that the communication to downstream landholders regarding dam releases from the management authority, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, was poor; and, secondly, that there was a fundamental flaw in management of the airspace of the dam, which means that storage of irrigation water comes at the cost of flood damage to farms and the environment. These concerns were echoed in the local media:
Lack of management of the Hume Dam has turned what could have been a constrained flood into a catastrophic one.
The fact there was not enough air-space is beyond belief.
Everything the basin authority has said has been proven wrong and the management from the authority is incompetent and inexperienced.
Mr Bill Tilley, the state member for Benambra, after observing sandbagging at Wodonga's Gateway Village, said:
I'm not necessarily confident the modelling has been good enough to inform the communities downstream from the Hume wall, particularly when you consider the inflows from the Kiewa River.
He added:
They've been slow to react to advice from state and local government authorities.
So there has been much local discussion about this particular issue.
The Murray-Darling Basin Authority began increasing release from the Hume Dam in late August to retain some airspace in the dam, apparently releasing 34 per cent of the dam's capacity in three weeks. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority advised that flooding was inevitable; it was a natural phenomenon which could not be fully prevented by the dam. It added:
When conditions are very wet and Hume Dam is high—
as was the case—
the dam can store no more water and therefore has only limited impact on the passage of a flood. It's the rain that causes the flood, not the dam.
Minister Joyce acknowledges that management of the dam is a complex issue and that 'we can always be wise after the event,' adding:
It's hard to anticipate what sort of airspace you need when you really don't have a conclusive idea of exactly how much is going to fall in your catchment and how much is coming in.
Locals also know that the management of the dam is a complex issue. Andrew Reynolds, the acting head of river management at the time, admitted that his organisation had been caught out by the record amount of September inflow. But it is not an issue that can be addressed or fixed by a single authority or organisation.
It is for this very reason that I invited representatives from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—chair Neil Andrew and general manager David Dreverman—along with representatives from the Bureau of Meteorology and WaterNSW, to meet with me, representatives of the Murray River Action Group and landholders in my electorate at a roundtable meeting on Tuesday, 1 November, in Wodonga. For the very first time, those responsible for water management and information gathering were sitting around the same table with affected landholders in a facilitated and, dare I say, relatively orderly meeting. This meeting delivered what people were asking for, which was a chance to explain their concerns directly to, and hear the explanation from, the people making the decisions at the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. But, more than that, it provided an opportunity for them to suggest how things could be improved.
The landholders of my region have years of experience and knowledge, and there is clearly an opportunity for them to provide practical, firsthand advice to the managing authorities to assist in their decision-making process. Very practical suggestions were put forward at the meeting. There was robust discussion, but having the right people together in the same room meant that we walked away with some very practical steps to finding a solution. There was a view held amongst local landholders that the advice from government agencies was, compared to previous years, lacking in regularity and detail, and landholders relied on their own experience to prepare.
I thank in particular WaterNSW and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority for their commitment, in response to these concerns, to convene a working group to review the early warning system and identify some practical steps to ensure timely and accurate communication to all landholders. While it was clearly acknowledged that the provision of timely and accurate communication to landholders is an area that needs further development, I would like to recognise the excellent work done by Joe Davis and his team at the Hume weir. These people work around the clock to monitor conditions and provide advice, and, for that, I and the landholders downstream say thank you. We appreciate what you have done, we appreciate your dedication and we are grateful for the work you have done for us.
I would also like to thank Neil Andrew for committing to bring together the Basin Officials Committee and the Murray River Action Group, along—I hope—with the member for Farrer and me to ensure that asset protection, irrigation water, flood mitigation and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive when managing the amount of water in the Hume Dam. I appreciate that Mr Andrew points out that 'the dam was built for the purpose of irrigation'. He states:
Protecting irrigators' water is listed as a higher priority for the MDBA in running Lake Hume than preventing flood events downstream.
He also said that current regulations do not allow the water level to purposefully drop below 97 per cent when planning for rain. Further, he said:
… when water inflows no longer occur and water outflows are needed for irrigation demand, and the dam's not full when we're running into a drought, the authority will be in even more trouble.
We need to acknowledge that the rules that govern how airspace is managed have been in place for some time now, and I really think it is timely that we review these rules. It is these rules that are the basis of the controversy of the discussions: how much is too much before we let the water out, and how much do we need to let go at any one time? The decisions on these rules will rest with the committee representatives from the federal, Victorian, New South Wales, South Australian and Queensland governments. While I will not be an advocate at the meeting, I will be very pleased to be a facilitator to ensure that there is a win-win for irrigators, landholders and the environment.
I would like to say how proud I am to be in this House and to represent the interests of my community. I was very proud to facilitate this important meeting. I am proud of the outcomes of the meeting and that they will result in better communication between government agencies and landholders. I am very proud of my staff and am grateful to them for all the work that they do, with their commitment, their loyalty, their dedication and their organisational ability. I would particularly like to acknowledge Georgina Curtis, who is in the House today, and thank her for her work.
I am proud to be of practical service to my community. On that note, I would like to draw attention to the young people in the House. I understand you are from Yea, which is also part of my electorate. It is great to have you here. Welcome. I look forward to meeting with you after I have finished this speech. I am proud of the landholders in the Murray Basin, particularly the members of the Murray River Action Group—especially their executive, who work in a voluntary capacity and who do such good work. They are: Marie Dunn, Secretary; Richard Sargood, Chairman; Greg Lumby, Vice-President; and all their team. Thank you for your proactive, pragmatic and tenacious approach to resolving issues. I am grateful to and appreciate the work of the Murray-Darling Basin, WaterNSW, the Bureau of Meteorology and the members of all my community for their goodwill and tolerance in what was a very difficult time.
In conclusion, it is timely to review the rules that govern how airspace is allocated in the Hume Weir and how that water is used. I am optimistic about the future and about our ability to work in a cooperative fashion to resolve these issues in a timely way and in a manner which meets the long-term needs of the landholders, the irrigators, the people of Albury-Wodonga and the authorities that we work for.
The opposition will be supporting the Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2016. This issue is hard. For members on both sides of the chamber, no-one should pretend that anything is easy when dealing with the Murray-Darling Basin. People on both sides of the chamber—and I include the minister at the table—have stepped up and made compromises that were hard and, in making those compromises, have fought very hard for their communities to get the best possible deal. But they also made sure that, in fighting for their communities, they did not continue the deadlock that had plagued Australia for more than a century—that is, in representing their communities, people were willing to see that no deal would be struck at all.
Both the minister at the table and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, who spoke earlier, are good examples, in fact, in that the plan in front of us and the legislation in front of us do not represent their ideal outcome. There is no-one who, from an environmental perspective, views the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that was enacted when I was minister for water as being the ideal outcome. In terms of my starting point when I was negotiating the plan up and down the basin, I would not view what we ended up with as the ideal, perfect outcome. But for more than a century we were a nation where there was no outcome. We needed to get to the point where, for the first time in the history of this country, we would treat the Murray-Darling river system as having a coordinated plan across the country.
The Murray-Darling river system is a very unusual system, in terms of the fundamentals of what we are dealing with. We are talking about one-seventh of our continent. We are talking about an extraordinarily large river system which reaches across Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and even the ACT. Where we are standing now, we are in fact within the basin. But it is much more than one-seventh of our agricultural output.
The debates that began in Australia, on whether the river system was being used effectively and whether the water that was being pulled out of the system in some states was having an impact on other states, were originally part of the Federation debates to determine whether or not we would, in fact, become a country. This issue was on the agenda then. It was viewed then not as an agricultural issue or an environmental issue but as a navigation issue. They were not able to get the barges far enough up the Murray River in South Australia when they went through periods of drought because of water that was being pulled out further up. So this issue has been live for a very long time.
It was always about the best political outcome. If you said: 'Okay. In terms of the politics, what's the best outcome for each state? What's the best outcome for each electorate?' the best outcome politically was always going to be for everybody to say, 'I'm not giving an inch,' defend the line for whatever was right for their community and leave Australia with this issue unresolved. The politics of that allowed people to be involved in a tough negotiation in which they did not give ground and did not get a national plan for more than a century. What then happened, though, in 1991 was a new negotiator came to the table. In 1991, the river decided to negotiate back, and it proved that it was less compromising than any politician. The blue-green algae outbreak went for 1,000 kilometres. At this point, the river effectively sent a message that unless you become serious about fixing this, it does not matter whether you care about the river for environmental purposes, for social purposes, for critical human use or for agricultural purposes; unless you fix this, the river is not going to allow any of it to work. That is the message that a blue-green algae outbreak sent out for 1,000 kilometres.
The Keating government responded in 1994 by brokering the first COAG agreement. That set the principles back in '94 on which all the reform that we are talking about today was subsequently based. That COAG agreement said that there would be pricing of water, there would be trading of water and to reserve some volumes of water for the environment. That fundamental concept of adopting a market approach to an environmental and agricultural irrigation problem was quite radical. Globally, now, that concept has been adopted in many parts of the world. Even China, with respect to the Yellow River, now have a form of water trading community by community, not landowner by landowner. This concept where you allow there to be market system to help inform some of these decisions is an example that Australia has set for the world. The Keating government, in getting to that point of the COAG agreement, formed the underpinnings of what would later become the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, but we still had a long way to go.
On this particular policy issue I do have to pay tribute to the work that was done under the Howard government; it would be dishonest not to. It was the big environmental reform in the final term of the Howard government—my first term in this place. It was also the first term of the now Prime Minister, who at that time was the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. He introduced the Water Act and he introduced what then became the legislative framework for the plan. So the intergovernmental framework was established by the Keating government, the legislative framework was established by the Howard government, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was advanced during the period of the Rudd government when Senator Wong was the Minister for Climate Change and Water, and concluded in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan under the Gillard government when I was the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
That plan effectively dealt with the issue in this way. If we start with some of the problems that we are dealing with: the Murray-Darling Basin, while it is one of the biggest river systems in the world, has two characteristics that make it quite different to any other major river system in the world. The first is that it is particularly dry, and the second is that it is particularly flat. In other major river systems—if you look at the Amazon or something like that—you will see water surging. Whereas in parts of the Murray-Darling and in particular in parts of the Darling, you will find parts of that river system where the water flows, except in times of flood, can be extraordinarily modest. In terms of how flat it is think of this: go to the Macquarie Marshes, right in the north of the Murray-Darling system. This is a system that flows all the way out to sea. Right at the top end of this system, you are only 142 metres above sea level. Where the Darling meets the River Murray, you are only 35 metres above sea level. This is an extraordinarily flat system. In terms of any of the water management that is done, when you are dealing with areas where the topography is particularly flat, it means that any flooding event will be different. If you have a steep system, the topography will mean that floods and major water events, when they occur, are more likely to mimic what had happened previously. When you have a very flat system these events will behave differently on every occasion. The Minister for Health and Aged Care and Minister for Sport at the table, from her own electorate of Farrer, would know all too well—aside from environmental water use, when there is a natural flood—how different each flood can be.
So the nature of the reform and the fundamental thing that the reform tries to do is to say, 'We will never return the Murray-Darling to a completely 100 per cent natural system.' Some people might advocate for that, but it is never going to happen. But what we want to make sure of is that we have a healthy working basin. There are sites that are viewed as the particularly sensitive environmental sites—and the rivers themselves are part of that, but there is a series of wetlands around the system that have critical environmental purpose as well—and sometimes the health of those sites will need to be managed deliberately. The way it gets managed deliberately is with water that used to be all allocated for irrigation purposes and that over time has increasingly been designated to the Office of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. This is the key to the reforms: the Environmental Water Holder then becomes responsible for initiating particular flood events or water events that are required to keep the health of the basin going.
The environmental health of the basin has a different requirement to what irrigators want. This is why some of the flexibility of the plan was put there quite deliberately. If you are an irrigator, then by definition you want the guarantees of water to be as regular as possible, but the environment will have, and ecologically is required to have, a cycle of drought years and good years. The challenge that we have had is that because of overallocation that was occurring in particular irrigation districts the environmental sites were not getting the good years. When it was meant to be a normal sort of year the environmental impact was in fact mimicking a drought year, so that by the time the drought years came along you had the system in such a state that environmentally it was as though it had already experienced a number of drought years before the drought itself arrived.
The key question was: how much water is required to keep the basin in a state of good health? On this one some people will argue 'the science says' and quote a magic number. On this issue, the truth is that there has never been and can never be certainty as to what exactly the perfect number of gigalitres required for maintaining the health of the basin should be or must be. But what we can know is the environmental benchmarks that we need to keep to to monitor whether or not the health of the basin is being maintained and, in some cases, restored and, similarly, to make sure that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has enough water for those outcomes to be able to be met.
One of the things that came out of consultation when this plan was put together—and this is why this bill is before us now—came out of a cross-party inquiry with some unanimous recommendations that was led by the then member for New England, Tony Windsor. It was a great use of a House of Reps inquiry, and it brought people together across the chamber. That inquiry wanted to find ways—where we could—of maximising the same environmental outcome while minimising the buyback direct from irrigators. Be in no doubt that buyback, when it occurs, occurs on a purely voluntary basis. It has not occurred through any form of compulsory acquisition. That is from the perspective of the individual irrigator.
From the perspective of the communities that rely on the water, they will often say, 'It still impacts on us even if some individual irrigator who is the owner of the water has made that decision.' They wanted to find a way for that to be counted in the plan. So where we ended up was to say that the first 2,100 gigalitres would have to be obtained as real water that was held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. You had to get to the environmental impact of 2,750 gigalitres, but, in relation to the 650 gigalitres in the middle, if the states could come forward with better ways of managing water that would deliver the same environmental outcome as the actual held water, that could be done in place of buyback.
A lot of people argued that we should not agree to this as a Commonwealth. It is a significantly more expensive way of doing things, with a significant impost on the taxpayer, but it delivers the same environmental outcome and a much better outcome for those irrigation communities. Often these things intersect, and to put people in different groups is not really right, because lots of people care about both. If your perspective is purely environmental, you get the same outcome; if your perspective is purely the communities, you get a better outcome. The test was always: would the states, who are in charge of bringing forward these projects, come up with projects that were good enough to meet the same environmental standards and mean that there were 650 gigalitres that did not need to be acquired through buyback methods? Whether the states will come forward with projects that are good enough is not yet known. This legislation sets a new deadline for the states to come forward with these projects and then sets a final deadline that was not previously there, which is a deadline on the authority, effectively, to say that certain projects are approved or not approved, and we then have the consequences.
As the states are putting together these projects, I want to make clear on behalf of the opposition that the opposition is absolutely willing to make sure that up to the 650 gigalitres can be delivered as an alternative path to buyback, but it must deliver the same environmental outcomes. If the states come back with projects that do not meet the environmental outcomes that are contained within the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the Labor Party has no interest at all in lowering the environmental standards that are contained within the plan. The only option for the states is to come up with projects that meet the environmental benchmarks of the plan. If they do so, there is 650 gigalitres that does not need to be otherwise acquired.
For the states to do that, there will be compromises that they will need to make. Some of these projects will be hard; some of these projects will be expensive. But the only options, if the states do not come up with projects that are good enough, are either further buyback or the powers that revert to the Commonwealth under the Water Act if the plan is not met. I suspect the states do not want either of those two outcomes, but some states may be wondering whether, if their projects do not come up to scratch, they will get away with the parliament agreeing to lowering the environmental standards in the plan. I want to make clear on behalf of the opposition that the answer to that question is no. There will be no lowering of the standards contained within the plan. There is no need for further buyback beyond what is in the plan for this portion of the 650 gigalitres. There is no need for the Commonwealth to exert the powers over the states that are contained within the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But those things remain the case only if the states put forward projects that meet the benchmarks. So I urge the states to do so.
I should flag, because I do not want anyone to think that I am misrepresenting the government's position, that I have had nothing from the government that would in any way imply that they want to lower the environmental standards of the plan. I just want the states to be absolutely, clearly on notice and I want state water ministers, when they are going to their treasurers asking for money to pay for these projects, to be fully armed with the knowledge that there is no interest in lowering the environmental standards that are contained within the plan.
In terms of the amount of buyback that that would then mean is required, on the latest information available, of the 2,100 gigalitres that has to be held water, 1,984 gigalitres are already held. There are only 115 gigalitres left to go. That is really close. There is an extraordinary opportunity for the states now, if they want to avoid further buyback and avoid the Commonwealth powers being activated, to put forward good-quality plans. We will then see the money that was put in place for the additional 450 gigalitres up, which was all to be added through improved on-farm infrastructure projects, where the Commonwealth government has been getting very good value for money and where improvements in technology continue to make this a very good outcome for irrigation communities. That money, which was voted by the parliament to be appropriated, all remains available to make sure that the full environmental impact of the 3,200 gigalitres is achieved and that the additional 450 gigalitres that comes towards the end of this entire process also occurs not with additional buyback but through the Commonwealth acquiring additional water, while irrigators have their on-farm infrastructure improved.
I want to pay tribute to a former Victorian state Minister for Water, from the other side of politics, Peter Walsh. There would not have been bipartisan agreement on this issue were it not for the concept of the 650 gigalitres that we are talking about now, with states finding ways to be able to better manage water and as a result being able to meet the environmental objectives without the Commonwealth having to hold that extra 650 gigalitres. It is a good outcome for communities, it is a sane outcome for the environment and it would not have been possible without the constructive and professional policy work that was done by Peter Walsh.
I should also pay tribute at this point to a giant of the river Murray, in particular, and of reform, who is no longer with us. Henry Jones was a great South Australian. One of the great events that many members of parliament attended during the entire negotiation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was when Henry as a professional fisherman brought a tinnie to Parliament House and, out there on the lawn, served us a barbecue of a series of different species that had been caught in the Murray. I asked Henry to be my guest at the National Press Club the day that I announced the plan had been signed into law. He was not well enough to be there at my table that day, and died quite shortly after. But I have no doubt we would still be facing the deadlock that plagued Australia for a century, were it not for the good work of Henry Jones. I send my best wishes to his family.
This all takes us to the situation where the government has brought forward legislation that shows that the bipartisan agreement which has characterised this issue for a long time now continues to hold. The only thing that could place the Commonwealth in any sort of a difficult situation would be if the states failed to come through on their part of the bargain. But I think I have made the position of the Labor Party crystal clear—that we are not for moving, and it is the states' obligation to come up with projects for 650 gigalitres or more that create better ways of managing the water.
I think Hattah Lakes is a good example to provide to the House of the things you can do to manage water and the simple sorts of things that have been done. Hattah Lakes is a beautiful environmental site. I have kayaked there, where you weave your way through the river red gums. But you need a massive amount of water to get an over-bank flow to reach Hattah Lakes. However, when water has been directly piped there, you have been able to get the same environmental outcome by using much less water. Similarly, there are a series of issues around what are called river rules, which go into a level of complexity which fascinates me alone probably, in this room—maybe also a couple of the departmental advisers. So I will not visit those upon the House! But, with the river rules, there are a series of things that can be done that make a fundamental difference to the efficiency with which water is managed.
At this point, for where we are, I want to pay tribute to everyone who has been involved so far. Difficult compromises were made, but we have ended up with something that does one thing that Australia had been incapable of for a century, and that says, 'We have a pathway to ensure that we have a healthy working basin in the Murray-Darling.' I pay tribute to the departmental officials of the Commonwealth and the states for the incredibly complex technical work that has been done for a very long time, and I have no doubt that the service they provided when I was minister is a service they continue to offer to the minister of the day.
We must not miss this opportunity. I am not naive, and I know that bipartisan support on any policy issue is a perilous thing. For those within this chamber who feel that, in their seats, they have made difficult compromises, please understand that there are many people in this chamber who may have a different interest in their electorate and who have a sense that they have made compromises too.
When I was first elected, one of the first things that happened following the election in 2004 was that I heard the first speech of the member for Adelaide, who is in the chamber now, which referred to growing up and sitting along the river Murray. Back then, none of us really expected we would get to the point that we have reached now. The health of the basin on a permanent ongoing basis is in front of us, it is possible and we can deliver it. I simply ask the government to continue to hold its nerve, and I ask the states to deliver on the agreement that had previously been reached so that the plan that was put into law in 2012 can continue to deliver, in Australia, with a healthy working basin.
I am very pleased to speak on this bill representing most of the New South Wales' Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers that have been affected both by the Basin Plan and the recent floods. I appreciate the comments of the shadow minister who has responsibility for water in this place. My electorate liked him a lot more than his predecessor and appreciated their opportunity to engage with him. However, they would be very frustrated today to listen to a conversation that talks about environmental targets and environmental responsibility, even though I fully subscribe to that and we all do in the area that I represent. But environmental standards are a complicated issue to come to terms with when you are standing knee-deep in a mosquito-ridden swamp pulling your half-dead sheep out, your crops are ruined and your livelihood is under threat, and then you realise that this is effectively a flood that is not nature but is made by man or, indeed, by releases from the Hume Dam.
I am simplifying what is a complicated issue, and I understand that, but I want to reflect that frustration here in the House today. Everyone I have spoken to along the Murray River in my electorate—they have been very badly affected by these recent floods—have said that they do understand that they live and farm on a flood plain and what that actually means, but I would like to quote one landholder Rob Locke who manages properties along the Lower River Road just west of Tocumwal. He said:
We are trying to work with government and its agencies to explain to them that the situation we are seeing now is very likely to occur more often under the flow targets of the Basin Plan. The first wave of flooding was roughly equivalent to the flows modelled by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in the development of the Basin Plan.
For people to consider that the situation I described—the incursion of floods and the awful result it has on families and farms—is actually what they should expect under an operational Basin Plan is pretty terrifying. As he said:
When Mother Nature brings flood events there is nothing we can do, but when human management of the system leads to damaging flood events it is unacceptable.
He went on to say that it is a shame that locals who understand water management and river systems are not consulted more by the decision makers. We know that in this instance the decision maker is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.
I appreciate the efforts the authority is making to engage more with the communities, but, at this stage, it is not working very well. The confidence that I often talk about has been the indicator and the restoration of confidence in the authority would be an enormous sign to everyone that the Basin Plan is working. You cannot be the architect of these things from outside the basin, ignoring the pain that is produced and visited on landholders and farms, and then, in some way, say that their views, their confidence and their involvement is secondary, because it is not. It should be primary, and that is what we are not seeing. As John Lolicato, who I know well down there, says, this is tearing the social fabric of communities apart.
The floods we have seen have affected different parts of the river Murray differently. I convened a meeting on 31 October, attended by Neil Andrew, chair of the authority, David Dreverman, who supervises river management and all of the affected landholders from pretty much the Hume Dam to Yarrawonga section of the river. It is a complicated coordination effort, and it has failed. I have to say that because we cannot stand here and say, 'Oh well, everyone is doing their best.' Of course everyone is doing their best! We are all doing our best too, but the result is, as one comment was made, when somebody rang the SES panicking because their farm was going to be flooded, the SES said, 'Well, we don't even know when those gates are open. Nobody tells us.' And the Bureau of Meteorology forecasts are general and in advance, there is no real-life website where you can go in and say, 'Okay, this is the river height now. This is the expected river height in the next three hours'—because this is how quickly floods move—'What am I going to do about it?'
We know that the people who live and farm on these flood plains are pretty smart at working out water levels and the damage that is done to their property. Their constant refrain was that the water rose so quickly and with so little warning—that the releases from Lake Hume were very slow and then went to very fast very quickly. A diagram of that looks like an exaggerated zigzag. Someone at the meeting that I convened made a very simple point: why couldn't you average out those highs and lows? You would release the same amount of water. It would not be an issue of not releasing the water, and there is a whole separate debate about when you start to release the water and when you start to make air space in a dam. If you release it early, it is not attached to anyone's entitlement and therefore it might effectively reduce an irrigator's entitlement downstream. I know that is a delicate balancing act and that water is effectively owned by people, including the environment. In this case I am pleased that no environmental water caused any floods.
The issue of when you make those releases, whether over a three-week or a three-month period, is vital. What we saw, as I said, was a graph that made these quite exaggerated waves; if that were simply evened out, the same result would be the same. My question to the landholders was: would you prefer if that were the case? And they said, 'Absolutely.' There was an alternative view put by the MDBA: that you would still end up with the same amount of water hanging around for the same amount of time. The response to that was, 'But you wouldn't get the peak of flooding and so you wouldn't have the flooding spread out to as many locations.' For example, the caravan park at Corowa and the River Deck Cafe at Albury were underwater. Small businesses had to walk away, because they did not have the information they needed to make the business decisions that they rely on for their income.
I come back to my main point: it is not good enough; it has to be sorted out. We have to do better in coordinating what is effectively a fairly substantial line-up of agencies. There is WaterNSW, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the SES, landholders, local government and probably more, because it is very much a local issue in the town. If this happens again, and I am sure it will, we need to make that coordination so that people are aware of what water releases are coming. They need some input by saying, for example, 'Perhaps we would like them to be more gradual over a longer period of time, rather than sudden with little warning.'
There is much work to be done to keep the Basin Plan healthy, both in terms of the commitment of landholders and the operational results for the environment. I agree that we need this to be a bipartisan exercise. We also need to be constantly aware that local people are bearing most of the pain. While there are people who have an interest in what goes on in my electorate but do not actually live there and while I am happy to hear their thoughts and respect their passion for environmental flows and healthy rivers—and I want those things too—we are not consulting our local communities enough. We are not giving them enough buy in; we are not allowing them to be part of the resolution of what is an incredibly difficult issue. We cannot accept a situation where we have Basin Plan targets, even if they are aspirational, of 18 megalitres a day at the South Australian border and 48 megalitres a day in these floods, which caused untold damage between the Hume Weir and the border. I know there is also an opportunity for water to come down from the Menindee Lakes. It looks fine from the South Australian border, and I agree with my colleagues in South Australia that we have to keep the river healthy from the South Australian border to the sea—absolutely, no question. But, if in getting the water, we do not have a sophisticated enough model that is capable of predicting how much damage will be caused—on this occasion, caused naturally in part, but in part by the man-made releases from the weir.
If we have to cause that sort of damage on the way down, what are we really doing? We are not doing a lot of good. I have had conversations with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, David Papps—an extremely good guy and I am not speaking on his behalf—but I think he feels some of this frustration. As the manager of the biggest water holder, which is the Commonwealth, he needs some flexibility and some ability to have some say in when and how the water is released. If communities lose confidence, that will be reflected in responses at the Ministerial Council. We want everybody to continue to sit around that table and continue to talk constructively and to stay with this. Events like the flooding that I have described have the real possibility of fracturing that confidence, and that would not be a good thing.
We know that the water buybacks that were initiated by the previous Labor government did a lot of damage. There was about $2.2 billion in buybacks spent by previous governments in poorly targeted ways. We have spent over $1 billion in investing in on-farm infrastructure. So we, the coalition, have put enormous dollars into generating the infrastructure on-farm and in system. It might, for example, be inside the Murrumbidgee irrigation system or Murray irrigation that we realise efficiencies in the system and therefore give farmers every opportunity to run their businesses successfully. That makes it all the more important that the water, which is the key to their survival and their livelihood, be available at the right price, at the right time and that their farming operations are not compromised.
The Liberal and National Parties believe irrigation not only feeds the nation but feeds the world. The contribution that our irrigated agriculture regions make to the prosperity of this nation is enormous—it cannot be understated. My constituents feel a sense of great frustration that the rest of Australia does not appreciate their contribution. A lot of the dialogue about agriculture is about dryland farming which, of course, is just as important, but irrigated agriculture is overlooked in a way that it should not be.
I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister has given me the opportunity to speak on the bill and to sum up the discussion. I recognise by the way his intense interest in this issue—his visits to my electorate, the conversations he has had with my communities, for which they are very grateful, and his understanding of everything that I have said.
Water is a precious resource, and the Basin Plan sets out the processes for coordinated and sustainable management of our most important river system, the Murray-Darling Basin. It also sets out long-term average sustainable diversion limits, SDLs, and includes an adjustment mechanism to amend those limits by up to five per cent. The adjustment mechanism provides for the amendment of SDLs based through either supply measure projects that deliver Basin Plan environmental outcomes with less environmental water, or efficiency measure projects that recover more environmental water in ways that deliver neutral or beneficial social and economic outcomes. That is very smart, because of the 23 indicators of catchment health, only one is flow. There is a lot more we can do to make catchments healthy than just look at removing water and allocating it elsewhere. So we will continue to work in partnership with the basin state governments and industry and community stakeholders to deliver balanced economic, social and environmental outcomes in the Murray-Darling Basin. I thank the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
) ( 12 ): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I speak in relation to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016 to say that Labor opposes this particular bill. According to the UNHCR the number of displaced persons fleeing from war, conflict or persecution is the highest since World War II, with Syria the epicentre of this. There are, according to latest figures, about 65 million persons around the globe who are displaced. Labor believes that Australia must do more, and we should participate in world affairs and do our bit in relation to this global humanitarian crisis. We believe in a compassionate approach in relation to asylum seekers which enables refugees to live and integrate in this country, which was built on migration. Labor strongly believes in a multicultural society, and Australia has been blessed and economically developed by the multicultural community we have become over the years. We have always committed ourselves to participating in leadership of the global work that is done in South-East Asia and the Pacific, and Labor believes we as a country should do more in the leadership of South-East Asia and the Pacific to look at regional humanitarian frameworks to enhance the situation and address the asylum seeker challenge that we face.
Labor took to the last election a commitment that we would increase our annual humanitarian intake. We urge the government to do more. We recognise that the government has made a commitment to increase the humanitarian intake, but we think we can do more than that. We have committed ourselves to a strong and independent voice within government to advocate for children, and we urge the government to adopt Labor's policies in relation to an independent children's advocate with resources and statutory powers to pursue the best interests of children, including the power to bring court proceedings on a child's behalf. We urge the government to legislate for mandatory reporting of child abuse in all offshore and onshore immigration detention facilities.
Labor is at one with the government to protect our borders and to shut down people-smuggling operations. These are criminal cartels, and we should not give them any succour or any support. Labor took a position in the 2013 election that no asylum seeker who came to Australia by boat would ever be resettled in Australia. The government is deliberately misrepresenting Labor's statement for base political purposes. The legislation before the chamber goes well beyond what the government has said. It prevents a person who comes by boat from ever coming to Australia under any circumstances. The legislation specifically says that an application for a visa is not a valid application. It could lead to absurd outcomes in relation to work, business, tourism, or even families.
Who is to say that the member for Dickson, the current Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, is the guardian in relation to this? The powers under this legislation are personal to him and non-compellable. He can exercise many of these powers by legislative instrument. Let's be clear: this is an overreach by the government, by a Prime Minister desperate to appease the right wing of his political party, to secure his leadership and maintain it, and to appease One Nation. It is more about votes and preferences in WA and Queensland in forthcoming state elections. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has been incompetent in relation to securing viable third-party or third-country resettlement arrangements. This government has been in power for three years, yet the people languish on Manus and Nauru with no prospect, at this point in time, of their being resettled.
Labor's policy has always been to keep our borders secure. We want to make sure we close down the route between Java and Christmas Island, and keep it closed down. We want to make sure that people-smugglers are out of business, and we will work with third countries as a priority in relation to these issues. But this is legislation out of desperation—desperation in terms of the leadership of the Prime Minister. It seems ridiculous. It is unnecessary legislation and it is nonsensical.
The government has come up with many excuses for this, but I want to get past their bellicosity—their bullying, their posturing, their posing—and the diatribe and the demagoguery we have heard from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. I want to have a look at what the bill actually says, because it is critical for those who might be listening. The bill amends the Migration Act and regulations to make any and all applications for a visa invalid where the applicant is part of a regional processing cohort. A designated regional processing cohort is defined as persons who are unauthorised maritime arrivals and after 19 July 2013 are taken to a regional processing country and are at least 18 years of age on the only occasion after 19 July 2013 when they were taken to the regional processing country or indeed transitory persons in respect of the same definition.
The definition of a transitory person is so broad—the government has attempted to scoop up as many people as possible. According to the independent departmental briefing that the opposition has received, about 3,100 persons are affected. This includes asylum seekers who are currently in regional processing centres on Manus and Nauru; those living in onshore detention in Australia in places such as MITA, Villawood and Maribyrnong; those living in community detention in Australia on bridging visas or other temporary arrangements; those persons who voluntarily return to their country of origin from Manus and Nauru; and the few genuine refugees who have accepted a resettlement option, including into Cambodia or Papua New Guinea.
By legislating that visa applications by these people are invalid, the bill implements a lifetime ban on any visa at any time for these people, including for travel to visit family, for tourism or for business or study in Australia. The immigration and border protection minister would have us believe that it is okay to permanently ban these people because he can use ministerial discretion to let a person into Australia. It is true that the bill gives the minister broad discretion to make a determination to waive these provisions in the public interest for an individual or a class of persons specified in a legislative instrument. But hidden in the legislation is a caveat that the immigration minister does not have a duty to consider whether to exercise his discretion in given circumstances.
What does this mean for asylum seekers? Put simply, the effect of this legislation is to shift exclusive control over access to Australia by former asylum seekers to the immigration minister—the minister who really has no compellable obligation in certain circumstances to adhere to their request. This cohort of people will be entirely dependent on the good grace and discretion of the member for Dickson to let a person into the country. This is the same individual who earlier described refugees as illiterate and innumerate people who would take Australian jobs or languish on the dole and use free health services within Medicare.
This is not good public policy. The bill means that the minister would need to intervene and apply ministerial discretion in circumstances in which former asylum seekers—genuine refugees in third countries—would be banned from visiting for tourism, for business or even to visit family. Just think about this situation. The minister would have to intervene to allow a doctor to visit Australia to perform surgery or attend a medical conference, or someone who then became a politician in that third country to undertake a political exchange or a study tour or visit Australian sister cities, or elite athletes from competing in upcoming sporting events like the Commonwealth Games, or to affect future Australian Olympics bids where there was a recognised refugee Olympics team, or former refugees from visiting family members in Australia or visiting tourist sites in Australia, such as the Great Barrier Reef, Uluru and other holiday spots on a tourist visa, or business owners or employees from visiting Australia to discuss the expansion of companies, businesses or franchises into the Australian market. Australians would be surprised if they were to discover that the maintenance of family relationships in this country is dependent on the member for Dickson. I do not know about you, but I do not think Australians trust the member for Dickson to make independent, fair and good decisions in the national interest on such applications.
We need an orderly migration process. We will not achieve this by giving the minister the discretion to make it up as he goes along. And the minister has form in this space. He is not known for being across the detail of his portfolio, and last week only added fuel to the fire. We took this bill seriously. We considered the legislation in detail. We took it to shadow cabinet, to the relevant caucus committee, and our caucus voted unanimously to oppose this bill. Can the Turnbull government say the same? At times in the last week it became evident that the senior ministers in the Turnbull government do not understand the legislation. And it is no surprise, because the immigration and border protection minister himself struggled to get his own story straight.
The Turnbull government has been incapable of articulating a consistent policy rationale for this legislation. The story seemed to change as members of the government added their own views. When they were asked whether refugees living in the Australian community on bridging visas would be affected by a lifetime ban on visiting Australia, in the space of 24 hours the immigration minister's office said yes, the foreign minister's said no, and the Minister for Health and Aged Care said no and then 'I don't know'. Where has the foreign minister been in all this? She is responsible for Australia's relationships with our international partners. The foreign minister has skin in the game, too, and she has been missing in action in this space. Neither the immigration minister nor the foreign minister has been able to secure durable third-country resettlement options for those persons on Manus and Nauru. They simply cannot get the job done.
But I digress. It is worth outlining what other members of the government have said, and I will start with the Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, a former assistant minister for multicultural affairs. I presumed that he would be across the bill. On Monday he waded into the debate, and I would like to thank him for that, because the assistant minister, who was described as 'a strong supporter of immigration', is reported in The Age as saying:
… the changes would merely ‘formalise’ existing protocols making it difficult for asylum seekers to obtain visas. Under the status quo, former asylum seekers considered to be at risk of breaching their visa conditions and staying in Australia were already likely to be rejected.
This is just gibberish, as far as I can see. It just confirms that the government has the powers and can do what the legislation is purporting to do anyway. It really is extraordinary that he could not get it straight either. Senior members of the government know that it is already difficult for asylum seekers to obtain a visa to enter Australia, and we already have processes in place to reject applications where the government has well-founded concerns.
But the assistant minister was not the only one to speak out. The immigration minister's own comments show that he is making it up as he goes along. Last Sunday week, the Prime Minister and the immigration minister stood together and claimed that this legislation is important to send a strong message to people smugglers to stop the boats. That would be fine, and maybe the Australian public would accept it, if, up until last Sunday, the government had not argued until they were blue in the face and bragged about the fact that the Turnbull government had already sent strong messages to people smugglers and they had already bragged that they had stopped the boats for over 830 days. The message from the government has changed, but the headlines on the minister's website have not: '800 days without an illegal boat arrival'; 'The coalition has stopped the boats'; 'Two years of not having illegal arrivals, because we've stopped the boats.'
Then there were the comments on 27 July from Rear Admiral Peter Laver, Commander Maritime Border Command, who, in a joint press conference, said:
Working unilaterally and with our partner countries in the region, we have been able to significantly disrupt and degrade people smuggling networks throughout our region and ensure that people don't undertake perilous voyages in dangerous conditions by boat to attempt to come to Australia. In the event that people attempt this voyage, we're absolutely certain that we have the assets in place to disrupt and interdict those ventures and take them back to the countries from whence they departed.
The boats have stopped, and the bipartisan policy that combines offshore processing and boat turnbacks, when safe to do so, works. We took amendments to our national platform in 2015 and adopted turnbacks when safe to do so. So, if this policy works, why does Australia need the legislation before the chamber today? The clear answer is that we do not.
The next excuse provided by the minister was that the legislation was needed to send a message to those people currently on Manus or Nauru who are waiting for government policy to change. The immigration minister said in his joint press conference with the Prime Minister on 30 October:
It is very difficult when people smugglers are messaging to them, where we have advocates here messaging them saying 'Don't accept packages, eventually you will come to Australia.'
The minister forgets that many of these people currently have nowhere to go. The minister has failed to secure resettlement arrangements and he has failed the people on Manus and Nauru for three years—he and his predecessor, the now Treasurer.
Next, the minister really outdid himself. He claimed that Australia needed to impose a lifetime ban on asylum seekers because we were going to be overrun with sham marriage. He said on 30 October:
There is intelligence that I've seen about people wanting to travel to Manus Island to marry some of the people from the regional processing centre, to try and create a process where they might come here on a spouse visa. That is not acceptable.
It is a claim he repeated all week, seemingly forgetting that Australia already has in place a robust program to access the genuine nature of relationships as part of the partner visa process. If the department has doubts about the genuine nature of a relationship, they can, should and do reject such visa applications. The government also has a robust compliance program in place to prevent, catch and remove people who overstay visas, and there has been no suggestion that this program is not equipped to manage future risks associated with issuing short-term visas to members of this cohort.
By 3 November, the minister's sham marriage claims were in tatters, as migration experts contradicted the claims. Kerry Murphy, a credited migration specialist, described the idea that new legislation was needed to prevent such relationships as 'frankly ludicrous'. He told TheGuardian:
You're looking at a process the department deals with very regularly. This is nothing new. Why not let the application go through the existing law that's already there? The legislation is there and being used, probably on a daily basis. There's no reason or logic why the law needs to be changed for such a small group of people.
Natasha Blucher, a detention rights advocate for the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, said:
If the department is worried it means they don't have confidence in their own internal processes. As far as I am aware there's a high threshold of evidence to show a relationship is not a sham relationship.
She went on to say that she was unaware of anyone in the offshore centres seeking out a 'sham relationship' in the hope of obtaining an Australian visa.
From Labor's point of view, the final nail in the coffin came on Monday when I was briefed by the department. Remember: we only got the bill last Friday and there was no explanatory memorandum. I finally got a briefing over a week later, on the Monday, from the department. Independent department officials confirmed that there have been no partner visa applications from asylum seekers who are currently in Manus and Nauru and who are in a relationship with someone living in Australia. They went further and said that there was a rumour that 'maybe' one application had been received from someone who had been on Manus or Nauru in the past, was now in another country and had made an application for a partner visa—'maybe'; it might occur; it might happen; it might be there. But we cannot legislate against rumours and speculation. The minister has been unwilling and unable to produce any credible evidence that this measure is needed. Its cause to wonder: do we need to legislate against a real threat of sham marriages or if the problem is only in the head of the member for Dickson?
Finally, when the minister knew he was losing public confidence, he claimed this legislation was needed to pave the way for a third-country resettlement option with another country.
Let me be clear, we need to get the people off Manus and Nauru. These people are being held in indefinite detention for too long. But the government have provided no credible evidence that there are any agreements in place with third countries for resettlement or that they have any in the works. They have not told the opposition and nor have they told the Australian public. Even if there were, there is no evidence that this legislation is required to secure that resettlement to a third country or countries. In briefings on Monday, the department representatives confirmed that no country had asked Australia to adopt this legislation to facilitate a regional resettlement agreement. No-one has asked us to do so. So why is the government taking this drastic step with this legislation today?
This legislation is a distraction. It is a distraction from the government's abject failure to secure third-party resettlement arrangements for asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru, and that is where their priorities should be. The only possible deal on the table was with New Zealand, and the government have not taken that up. Instead, they choose to let these people languish. The immigration minister on 31 October said:
Settlement in a country like New Zealand would be used by the people smugglers as a marketing opportunity.
I say to the minister: really? Remember this is the same minister who justified conditions on Manus and Nauru, comparing them to refugee camps in Jordan, saying the conditions were better. One would hope so. They are Australian government funded facilities and we are spending millions of dollars in this process. We have an obligation to treat people fairly and to make sure people are safe there.
I note the government failed to support Labor's Senate inquiry in relation to the Nauru files and the allegations of abuse, mental health and harm issues on Manus and Nauru. The government have been abject in their failure in terms of transparency and accountability, and voted against that Senate inquiry, which will now report by March next year.
When asked about this particular bill—a New Zealand option, the idea that people from Manus and Nauru would be resettled there—the conservative New Zealand Prime Minister John Key said: 'We have no intention of having separate classes of New Zealand citizens.' And then he ruled out an agreement for refugees granted New Zealand citizenship to be unable to travel to Australia. So John Key, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, has said he does not want second-class New Zealand citizens, and that is something which, I imagine, other countries would also believe.
It is hard to think that this legislation would help facilitate people being resettled. It is more likely to be a hindrance to being resettled, because other countries would have people coming to them, who, if they became permanent residents or indeed citizens, would be second-class citizens in terms of travel to Australia. The measure for third-party resettlement that the government is trying to bring in has been destroyed—in terms of its credibility as a necessity by the comments made by the New Zealand conservative Prime Minister.
There are concerns that have been raised in relation to this particular legislation. We are a signatory to the refugee convention and the provisions there. There are concerns that have been raised in terms of the legality of this particular measure. I have asked the government for a copy of any legal advice that confirms the bill is in keeping with our international and domestic obligations. The government has declined to provide that legal advice and preferred to keep it secret from the opposition and the public.
It is little wonder people are concerned about this—people such as Ben Saul from the Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney. He publicly raised concerns about the bill breaching Australia's international obligations. He argues that it breaches article 31 of the refugee convention as well as Australia's family reunion obligations under articles 17 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
What about families? When asked about how this bill could tear apart families and put strain on relationships, the immigration minister in a press conference on 2 November said those families would have to relocate to a third country. He said:
… we may be able to reunite families, for example, to take up third-country settlement options, if that's an arrangement that's appropriate …
Honestly, this minister is clueless on this issue.
If the government wants to talk to the opposition, we are happy to work with the government to provide bipartisan support in getting people off Manus and Nauru and to make sure that people living on Manus and Nauru are treated with dignity and respect. We want to make sure that our borders are secure but also that people who are in Australian government funded facilities are looked after.
The idea that somehow, in 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years time, someone assessed as a refugee who has become a citizen of another country would be prevented from coming here on a short-term visa, for work or for business opportunities—opportunities which might enhance Australia's economic or tourism development, bringing in more money to Australia—or indeed to visit their family, is ridiculous and absurd. It is not Labor's policy. There is no credible evidence why this legislation is needed in the circumstances.
The legislation has no basis in good public policy and it will not achieve the outcomes the government suggests, in terms of preventing sham marriages. If the government thinks there is a problem with sham marriages, come and talk to us and we will look at further legislative changes which might enhance the government's ability to prevent sham marriages. But it has not done that at all.
The perverse outcomes I have outlined are simply unacceptable. If there is a problem, the government should talk to the opposition about this, not turn to dog-whistling and demagoguery. That is not the answer. They did not speak to us before they had that press conference last Sunday week about this. The minister did not talk to me about it. The Prime Minister did not talk to the Leader of the Opposition about it.
It seems this government is committed to reaching out to the far Right. They are spooked by Pauline Hanson and One Nation, and the Prime Minister is insecure about his leadership—it is quite clear. All they want to do is talk about these types of things. We saw it on display yesterday. But this is a distraction from their complete failure to secure third-country resettlement arrangements and get these people off Manus and Nauru. One Nation has made a comeback in the Senate, and they are worried about it. Make no doubt about it—the Turnbull government has pulled this idea straight out of the One Nation playbook, and Senator Pauline Hanson was the first person to welcome the idea and claim credit for it. She tweeted:
Good to see that it looks like the government is now taking its cues from One Nation. Just like last time.
I hope the Prime Minister is happy with himself. He should be very proud of this legislation. We thought he was a small-l liberal and believed in things, but he is cuddling up to One Nation. Is this why the Prime Minister got into politics—to bring legislation like this before the chamber? It is a disgrace. Rather than playing petty politics, muddying the waters with rumoured third-country deals and doing One Nation's bidding, the government should be focusing on securing third-country resettlement options. That is where the government's focus should be. They have utterly failed. We are willing to work with them, but we will not support this demagoguery. We will not support this legislation, and I urge crossbenchers and everyone in this chamber to oppose it.
I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016. I must say that uncontrolled immigration into Australia has been an issue of great concern to the public and to successive governments—since the early 2000's in particular. It is a divisive issue, and I fully understand some people's anxiety around what appear to be tough, harsh measures. But sometimes there are no easy choices in this life and there is a right path and a wrong path, or a path that leads us to a worse outcome.
John Howard showed courage back in the early 2000's in a move to stop illegal boat arrivals, which were certainly out of control at that time. I remember well the confrontations that John Howard faced in the community, with the drownings and the emergency measures, but certainly the vilification of John Howard was terrible. As he moved around the country and visited university campuses, the protesters were out there and, to them, Howard was the devil reincarnate. But his wisdom and his strength of character were shown to be the right path for Australia, because the boats did stop, and, when the boats stopped, the drownings stopped. And, eventually, some of the protests stopped.
Australia did not take fewer refugees—not at all. Even today, or especially today, we retain one of the most generous refugee resettlement programs in the world. In fact, at the moment, we are lifting this program from around 14,000 a year to 18,750 by 2018-19. Plus, because people have faith in our ability to control the borders and in the way the government is running this part of the policy, we were given the ability to announce the fact that we would take 12,000 Syrians from that terrible crisis over there, those that were most persecuted within that country. So we continue on a good path.
To come back to the Howard years again, once the arrivals stopped, the protests and vilification slowed as well. When, eventually, the detention centres were all empty, all the protests ceased. No-one was drowning, no-one was being detained, many centres were closed and even Christmas Island was mothballed. It shows that, once the border is under control, so many of these other issues just disappear. All that was left, really, in this debate was political vanity. When the Rudd government came to power in 2007 that was all on show, with the agitation of the Left within the Labor Party, its desire to differentiate itself from those harsh Howard years and its belief that we could just change the laws a little because no-one was coming, no-one would notice and it would all be okay. So Kevin Rudd dismantled those laws, and the boats started coming.
Remember, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I am sure you remember well—the great cry from the Labor Party then? 'But it's all about push factors. It's nothing to do with what Australia is doing; it's all these push factors. There are record numbers of refugees in the world,'—as if there are not today—'and it wouldn't matter even if we tried to stop the boats. You couldn't do it anyhow, because the circumstances are so completely different to 2004. We are now in 2008, and there's no way those policies would work. The evil coalition in those days,' the Labor Party would say, 'was just grandstanding,' and the Labor Party continued to defend the indefensible. The results of those policies were 50,000 illegal boat arrivals on 800 boats, the detention centres reopening and new ones being commissioned, and these figures: 8,000 children placed in detention and an $11 billion blow-out in the detention and processing budget.
This is the part that really gets to me: where were the protesters? Where were all those students on the university campuses? Where were those who marched against John Howard's detention centres when Labor built new detention centres and filled them up? Where, even, I must say, were the righteous church lobbies that were so judgemental over the John Howard years? Where were they when Labor presided over one of the worst public policy failures in this nation's history? Where were they? They were silent. They were missing. They were muted. Why was there no criticism of children in detention?
Where was the Human Rights Commission? Why were they not running an inquiry into people held in detention? That is not a question I will answer here, Mr Deputy Speaker—you can reach your own conclusion. They got around to that subject a little later, once the government had changed.
The coalition was elected and immediately did what the Left said was impossible: we stopped the boats. It has now been more than 830 days since a successful arrival. There are no deaths at sea. We have closed 17 detention centres. One I might mention—talk about a better use for a detention centre—was the Ellis Close detention centre in Port Augusta, where, in its place, only a couple of weeks ago, I opened a new drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre. That is a far better use of Australia's resources. No children who arrived by boat are held in detention in Australia. The 2,000 children Kevin Rudd bequeathed to the coalition have all been released. It is worth remembering that when Labor came into power in 2007 there were just four illegal maritime arrivals held in detention.
Having achieved so much, it is unbelievable that those who held their counsel during the Rudd-Gillard years have rediscovered their voice. The outstanding success of Operation Sovereign Borders has stopped dead in its tracks the very lucrative, evil people-smuggling trade. The peddlers of misery, the creators of death by journeys at sea, have stopped. But our intelligence community inform us that they are still there; they are waiting for their opportunity.
I remember that, in the lead-up to the last election, Channel 7 sent a television team to Indonesia, where they looked at those who were queuing for illegal boats. It is estimated that 14,000 people are waiting in Indonesia for the opportunity, for a sign of weakness from Australia. To paraphrase one potential boat traveller: 'We are hoping that Labor win the election because we know they like boat people.' Well, he was certainly half right—whether or not they like boat people, I am not sure, but they certainly do not mind having a rampant trade in people smuggling. Their past actions underline this fact. In fact, their resistance to this legislation today would say that nothing much has changed.
All this has occurred while we have seen a disaster unfolding in Europe. Countries which had earlier expressed concern with Australia's methods are now lining up to see how we have stopped the boats. I remember listening to the German Chancellor when she opened the floodgates to uncontrolled immigration in Europe by basically saying, 'If you can get to Germany, we will look after you.' They are now dealing with the human safety issues that uncontrolled migration present. All the countries they travel through to try to get to Germany are now trying to resurrect borders which they had abandoned 20 years ago. They are dealing with terrible, miserable issues. All this is feeding into Europe's great disquiet that they are losing their identity. I would suggest that the events of the last two years have set up a certain instability within Europe that they will be struggling with over the next 20 years.
Labor lost the election, and the coalition is determined that no false signals will be sent to those people that would wish to arrive in Australia by boat. The message that they just need to be patient and that Australia will blink and allow them in is a message we must not allow to gather speed. That is why we are presenting this legislation for a permanent ban, making sure there is no back door. We are doing no more than giving substance to the statements made previously by Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and the Leader of the Opposition that boat arrivals will never be allowed to settle in Australia.
Our proposal has a date criterion to clearly delineate those who may have tried to come here before the government declaration—which was in fact Kevin Rudd's declaration, when he said: 'As of today, asylum seekers who arrive here by boat without a visa will never be allowed to settle in Australia.' Those who were under 18 at the time they were transferred to a regional processing centre will not be affected by this legislation. It will affect no-one who has attempted to come to Australia since the coalition was elected, because they have all been unsuccessful. It will affect only those who came to Australia while Labor were in power. That is why they should back us in continuing to clean up the mess that they left. But, once again, they have caved in to their Left with gesture politics, pretending to show a little bit of compassion, a little bit of weakness. That will make no difference to the outcome.
We will continue to work hard. We will empty Manus and Nauru, but not by dropping our guard and just letting these people come to Australia because everything else is too hard. We will find suitable countries for these people. Yes, it is hard, it is difficult—certainly it is—but we are up to the task and we will get there. These things take time. The point missed by so many is that, while there are still people in the regional processing centres in Nauru and on Manus Island, no-one is being added to their numbers, because there are no new boat arrivals. The coalition has not been putting people in detention. We are dealing with the people that were left here by the Labor administration.
We will not allow those held in offshore detention to entertain the thought that, if they continue to refuse the options put in front of them of settling in a third country or returning to their home country, they will get into Australia by default. They will not. Yes, it is tough. This is tough legislation, but that is because there are no easy choices in this game—whatever you do has consequences. But it is responsible and it is delivering a better outcome for more people. We accept more refugees into Australia as a result of the solid policies, the successful policies, of this government. We should be given some credit for that—not just some credit but a huge amount of credit. We are delivering a more humane and receptive refugee policy to the world. We will not be dictated to by others and we will not offer false hope. I commend the legislation to the House.
I rise to speak in opposition to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016. I will go through, as methodically as I can, the rationale given by this government for the merits or otherwise of the proposed changes to the Migration Act. The migration amendment was announced by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration last weekend on Sunday, 30 October. Initially, the Prime Minister stated that the purpose of the bill was to send a clear message to people seeking asylum in Australia that the door is closed. Just following the announcement—almost immediately—Pauline Hanson was quick to remark that it was:
Good to see that it looks like the government is now taking its cues from One Nation.
At first blush, we all looked at the announcement of this proposed legislation and we saw, quite clearly, an overreach by this government and by this Prime Minister, who is so desperate to please the right-wing extremists in his own party and so desperate to please Pauline Hanson and One Nation. And, as we have seen, as the week has progressed, this, very sadly, has been the case. It is a desperate ploy. At the time, I noted that Minister Dutton had once again dragged 'a pained and morally bankrupt Malcolm Turnbull along with him to blow a very loud dog whistle as a sop to Pauline Hanson'.
This so-called legislation is really nothing but a smokescreen for the abject failure of the Turnbull government, which for over three years has failed to find resettlement solutions for the refugees languishing on Manus and Nauru. Asylum seekers have been held in indefinite detention for too long because this government has failed to secure viable third country settlement arrangements. At the time, many of us argued against the nonsensical consequences and the base politics driving this government's proposed legislation. I took a moment to reiterate what I said in my first speech a few months ago in this place: that Australia has a moral, ethical and legal obligation to find a comprehensive solution for the people on Manus and Nauru who are currently in indefinite detention and also to the current international and regional refugee crisis. Of course Labor stands ready, as our shadow immigration minister, Shayne Neumann, said earlier in this debate. We are ready to put aside and ignore the base politics put forward by this government and to find solutions for these refugees in a bipartisan manner—to end the indefinite detention, because that is what we all want to see.
I want to make the point that some of our most admirable Australians have come to Australia as refugees—people like Frank Lowy, Gustav Nossal, Hieu Van Le and my good friend Les Murray, the icon of football in this country. They have gone on to make huge contributions to this country. Their contribution is something to celebrate, and it should not be something that is caught up in the party politics that this government is playing. That is why the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, was so right to rebuke the government for caving in to the extreme far-right-wingers with this proposed legislation. He is also right to say it is ridiculous—ludicrous—that it may prevent someone who was a genuine refugee and settled in another country from ever visiting Australia in a legitimate capacity even years later. The Minister for Immigration stood in this place yesterday and confirmed the bill has a purpose to amend the Migration Act to enable the government to ban genuine refugees from ever entering Australia, on either a temporary or a permanent visa, for life. Section 4 of the bill proposes to insert the following into the Migration Act:
(2AA) An application for a visa is not a valid application if it is made by a person who:
(a) is an unauthorised maritime arrival under subsection 5AA(1); and
(b) after 19 July 2013, was taken to a regional processing country under section 198AD; and
(c) was at least 18 years of age …
These proposed sections have bizarre and ridiculous consequences. We have heard some of the examples, but what if someone resettled in New Zealand—a genuine refugee—became a New Zealand citizen, entered New Zealand politics, entered their parliament, became the Speaker of the lower house in New Zealand and came to visit you, Deputy Speaker Kelly, in a couple of years time? They would be barred from entry this country—the Speaker of the House in New Zealand. Some of the consequences of this are utterly bizarre, ridiculous and nonsensical. In the future, we could have US citizens who become start-up tech gurus and set up companies that have global success, and they would be barred from entry to this country. Some of these examples are so ridiculous that one would have to think twice about them before talking about them. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has argued that there is a ministerial discretion for this. So, every time one of these people from overseas seeks to comes here on legitimate business or as a tourist, it would require a minister to provide discretion. It is absolutely ridiculous.
The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has also said in this parliament that there have now been over 830 days since a successful illegal boat arrival. So why is it necessary to now send a further message—to add the draconian measures in this bill that I have just outlined—if the laws are currently working? What is the necessity of it? Then they moved on to the point that the legislation was connected as a precondition of the government entering into a resettlement solution with New Zealand. We have been given no detail. We have seen no detail about this. Our leader, Bill Shorten, sought information from the Prime Minister, as he said in his press conference the other day. But he was given no information. Of course, we all know that the conservative New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, belled the cat on that part of the rationale behind this bill by saying he could not envision a situation where a resettled refugee would gain New Zealand citizenship and not have to travel rights to Australia. He said:
We've got no intention of having separate classes of New Zealand citizens.
So he belled the cat on that part of the rationale for the proposed legislation.
Then, of course, we have seen media reports in the last few days that the government is in the final stages of negotiations to offer permanent resettlement to most of the almost 2,000 refugees on Manus and Nauru. Fantastic—let's see the details of that. Why would the government not come to the opposition, without going into base politics, and talk about bipartisan efforts to resettle the people of Manus and Nauru? I assume they have the right intentions, that they want to see these people resettled—why would they not be talking to the opposition about a bipartisan approach to those negotiations? Reports have stated that several countries would likely be involved, the United States and Canada among them. I suggest to those opposite that the Trudeau government in Canada or a likely Clinton administration in the United States would probably take the same position as Prime Minister Key.
I noted earlier the government's abject failure to resettle the people on Manus and Nauru, after more than three years. The perfect example of this is their efforts with Cambodia. On 26 September 2014, Australia and Cambodia signed an agreement providing for the relocation of refugees from Nauru to Cambodia. In April of this year, Cambodia's top government spokesman admitted that Australia's agreement to resettle refugees from Nauru has failed and that his own impoverished country does not have the social programs to support them. Australia, this government, gave Cambodia $40 million in aid for signing the agreement and has spent another $15 million to get only five refugees to the country. The Sydney Morning Herald reported in April that three of the five refugees who arrived in Cambodia under this deal have returned to their countries of origin and the two remaining in the capital, Phnom Penh, are deeply unhappy and also want to quit the country. It has been an utter failure.
Asylum seekers have been held in indefinite detention for too long because this government has failed in its duty to secure viable third country settlement arrangements as it said it would. As the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Blair, has rightly asked, where has the government, where has the foreign minister, been in regard to these negotiations? I hope there are negotiations in place and that there is the potential for resettlement, because that would be a great result for the people of Manus and Nauru.
The next government rationale for this proposed legislation is sham marriages. They have had about three or four in the space of one week. We had the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection saying sham marriages were the reason for this legislation. He quoted media reports that refugees have undertaken sham marriages in order to obtain an Australian visa as a justification for the lifetime ban. This is despite no-one on Manus or Nauru having actually applied for a partner visa. There might be a handful of cases of sham marriage, but Australia already has robust laws which deal with sham marriages. Section 240 of the Migration Act 1958 already makes it an offence to arrange marriage to obtain permanent residence. It is already there. Section 240 states quite clearly:
A person must not arrange a marriage between other persons with the intention of assisting one of those other persons to get a stay visa by satisfying a criterion for the visa because of the marriage.
So it is unnecessary, and it is not a rationale for this lifetime ban when we already have the laws in place to deal with sham marriages. The penalty, of course, is imprisonment for 10 years. It is clear that this is nothing more than wedge politics, nothing more than base politics, designed to appeal to the worst prejudice and fear in our community. This has been demonstrated by the minister for immigration's pronouncements just last night. On Sky News the minister for immigration, Peter Dutton, again attempted to rationalise this bill—I think this was the fifth rationale; I have lost count. He said:
In this day and age when you've got people running around the world pretending to be refugees, who are not refugees, but are involved in terrorist activities, or are involved in terrorist organisations, you cannot afford to have people coming across your borders when you don't know who they are.
So the minister is now conflating terrorism with refugees. I have worked in national security and I have committed most of my professional life to defending Australia and defending Australians and their security. I know of the great work that the intelligence agencies do, that our security agencies undertake, quietly and unheralded. I know about the strong vetting they undertake to ensure Australians are kept safe. It is absolutely disgraceful that the minister for immigration on Sky News last night was running around talking about refugees being terrorists and that we do not know who they are. Well, we do know, very well. The security agencies and the intelligence agencies of Australia do a fantastic job in making assessments on security and vetting anyone who comes into this country.
The justification for this bill, the rationales that have been provided, has been a frantically moving message since the initial announcement last weekend, on the 30th. It is an absolute disgrace that the government has tried to spend the entire week changing its rationale to justify what is a nonsensical proposal. This issue is very close to my heart, and I am quite passionate about it. As the son of migrants who fled Egypt to escape a region engulfed by war, I appreciate the yearning for a life of peace, security and opportunity. Their sacrifice, and the sacrifice of millions of migrants who have come to this country to help build Australia—not just its physical environment but to add to the diversity of its culture, the generosity of its people and the depth of its humanity—is important to me and the dog whistling that has gone on by this government is an absolute insult to the many millions of migrants who have made this country what it is.
I am committed, as Labor is committed, to Australia's role in the world as a good international citizen, making a difference to people's lives across the globe. The Labor Party is absolutely committed, as Bill Shorten has said, if we were to win government, to negotiating with the UNHCR to resettle the refugees on Manus and Nauru in safe and secure countries. We are committed to doing this because it is the right thing to do, and we will move swiftly to do it. This is bad law, and we oppose it because it is bad law. For the reasons I have outlined, there is no substantive rationale to change the current laws, which by the government's own admission are working. It is base politics. It appeals to the lowest common denominator. It is a desperate play by a desperate government whose model for government is governance by diversion and distraction. On that basis, I oppose this bill.
The coalition's border protection policies have successfully stopped the boats. They have ended the numerous deaths at sea and removed all children from detention. These are facts. They are not controversial and they are not open for debate. The three central pillars of the coalition's border protection policies that have delivered this outstanding result are: turn-backs where it is safe to do so—and there have been 28 or 29 of those on the public record; temporary protection visas; and regional processing. These pillars do not work in isolation. They never have. They are a policy suite. They work together. They complement and enhance each other. None would have succeeded in isolation, but together they have ended the disaster, the tragedy, the desperation, at sea. Removing, changing or making amendments to any one of them will actually destroy the very foundation that Operation Sovereign Borders has put in place in protecting our sovereignty.
I am well aware of how this works. I worked with Scott Morrison, the then shadow immigration minister, in opposition to put together the plan that worked. I introduced Major General Jim Molan to the coalition, and together we worked up the military options and the military plan that would eventually take shape to achieve what has been done to the north of our border. But, notwithstanding the success of the planning, the implementation and the execution of Operation Sovereign Borders, people smugglers will continue, and are continuing, to take advantage of vulnerable people by trying to convince them to get on boats to Australia. Right now, as we speak, there are 14,000 people waiting in Indonesia to board people-smuggling boats to Australia, while the people smugglers know full well that they will never settle in Australia. But the people smugglers are a vile lot, so vile.
If you think about where offshore detention started, it started under a Labor government. They put in place offshore detention. It was Bolkus—serious Left organisers. The current Left organisers in the Labor Party are pathetic. They do not know what they believe. The serious Left organisers understood the vermin that are the people smugglers. They understood that these groups moved down child sex slaves, drugs, guns—the most heinous of crimes they are involved in. Bolkus and co., the Hard Left organisers, quickly understood exactly what was happening and they put in place regional processing because they knew they had to stop the horror of the people-smuggling business. That, of course, finished with the Rudd years, but that bloc is now being put back again.
This bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016, amends the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994 to prevent illegal maritime arrivals, IMAs, who were at least 18 years of age and were taken to a regional processing country after 19 July 2013 from making a valid application for an Australian visa. It prohibits them from ever, ever, ever doing so. By the way, this is the date that Kevin Rudd signed the regional resettlement arrangement with Papua New Guinea. He declared, with the full support of those opposite:
As of today, asylum seekers who come by boat without a visa will never be settled in Australia.
We give practical application to those words. Labor is good at hollow words. It is marvellous at gesture and identity politics. We are good at actually implementing words and making sure they mean something. This legislation applies to people who: are currently in a regional processing centre; have left a regional processing country and are in another one; are in Australia awaiting transfer back to a regional processing country; or are taken to a regional processing country in the future.
The amendments, of course, will include a personal power of the minister to permit a member of this cohort or a class of persons to make a valid application for a visa if the minister thinks it is in the public interest. This is a power the minister has right now, and he exercises it literally every day to allow people to enter the country. Those opposite come up with ridiculous statements like: 'If an immigrant goes to New Zealand, gets elected to parliament and becomes the Speaker, he can't come and visit.' What a nonsense. That is what ministerial direction is all about. That is what ministerial power is all about. Another ridiculous example was given: 'What if an asylum seeker goes to America and creates the next Google, the next start-up, and wants to come to Australia?' That is what ministerial discretion is all about. All of these truism-type shibboleths are thrown up as straw men by those opposite. They are and will be complete and utter rubbish because of the discretional power of the minister. We all know that. Those who have served know that.
The bottom line is: preventing irregular maritime arrivals in the regional processing cohort from applying for a visa to Australia will remove the risk of noncitizens circumventing our border security policies. Under current legislation, people in the regional processing cohort can actually validly apply for and be granted a range of visas, and the government is aware of a number of people in this cohort who have already done this and, in some cases, travelled to Australia. If people are granted visas and travel here, it will only encourage other people in the cohort to also pursue Australian visas in the hope of longer term settlement. Further, if people have voluntarily returned home or volunteered to settle in a third country and if they are able to subsequently travel here to Australia on a tourist visa, it will undermine our assistance in their return and reintegration processes and it will provide a backdoor way of circumventing the government's position. As the minister has already stated, we are now seeing another line coming through, where people are looking to get marriage visas as a way for them to enter Australia, again circuitously, through this back door.
This bill will communicate to those irregular maritime arrivals in regional processing countries that they will never, ever, ever settle permanently in Australia. No matter what the advocates say, no matter what the refugee advocates try to imply and no matter what the vile people smugglers say, this will make it abundantly, patently, blatantly, completely and totally clear that they will never, ever, ever settle permanently in Australia and that those people should engage with the governments of Nauru and Papua New Guinea to take up the return and resettlement packages available to them. IMAs on Papua New Guinea found to be refugees can settle in Papua New Guinea, IMAs on Nauru found to be refugees can settle in Cambodia and IMAs found not to be refugees should depart voluntarily now.
Let us not forget the history of this—and history is important. If we do not remember history, we will repeat the mistakes of the past, and history in this case is not that long ago. When Labor came to power in 2007, there were four—just four—IMAs, irregular maritime arrivals, in detention and none were children. Labor proceeded to tear down the Howard government's successful border protection policies. They thought they were no longer needed. We have heard the rhetoric this week alone, 'Oh, it's been over 800 days since anyone's arrived. We don't need to do that anymore.' Despite the fact that Rudd and Labor said during the 2007 election campaign that they would turn back boats, Rudd never did any of that. He sought the applause of the Left. Of course, he pulled apart the successful border policies, and what we saw was complete and utter chaos.
The facts are startling and the facts are not in dispute. Fifty thousand illegal maritime arrivals came on over 800 boats. The Labor Party were putting out press release after press release, every single day. Eight thousand children were put in detention by those opposite. Let us not forget the result of the chaos that they caused, nor forget the fact that, during the election we just went through, over 50 per cent of those opposite opposed our successful border protection policies and wanted them changed, even though what they were advocating for had led to 50,000 illegal arrivals and 8,000 children in detention. Those opposite opened 17 detention centres and two offshore processing centres. One thousand two hundred people died at sea as a minimum. That is a result of the chaos that those opposite started. These are facts and they are not open to dispute. There was an $11 billion budget blowout.
So the coalition implemented its suite of policies, and the result is quite simple, is quite stark and is not in contention. The chaos has ended; our borders are secure. There have been zero deaths at sea. There have been over 830 days without a boat arrival. Every child has been removed from detention. Those opposite put 8,000 in detention. Seventeen onshore detention centres have been closed. Our humanitarian intake, because of what we have done, has increased from 13,750 to 18,750. Let us not forget that the chaos of the Rudd-Gillard years on border protection got to the point where there were so many people arriving, self-selecting through people-smuggling networks, that Labor closed the entire humanitarian intake for those desperately in need and filled it predominantly with Islamic fighting-age males that had come from Afghanistan and the region into Pakistan, and travelled across Pakistan into Malaysia, from Malaysia to Indonesia, and from Indonesia down to Australia.
The law of the UNHCR and the 1967 convention is very clear: you seek asylum in your first country of safety. If you have fled Afghanistan and you are in Pakistan, surely you are free. If you have fled Pakistan to Malaysia, surely what you are fleeing from in Afghanistan has ended because you are now in a third country. Surely you are free. When you travel from Malaysia to Indonesia, in many cases flying from Kuala Lumpur to Jakarta, surely in that fourth Islamic country you are free. But they pay people smugglers to come to Australia. That, in any definition, is not fleeing persecution; that is seeking a better economic life—and that is not in contention either. Because of what we have done, there are no lives lost at sea. We are able to increase the humanitarian refugee program where those opposite saw it decrease to zero. We have been able to provide 12,000 spots during the Syrian crisis for a special one-off intake because we have secured our borders, and that is the benefit of the work we have done.
The great tragedy of all this is: Labor has learned nothing from these mistakes. Some of the old guard have—there is no question about it. Some of the older members among those opposite knew the original Bolkus and Labor hard Left—the real organisers—and knew a thing or two about the vile scum that moved through in the people-smuggling network, but most of them have learned nothing.
This bill reflects the government's longstanding position, and we used to understand it as a bipartisan position, or that was the point Labor made during the election, anyway—that IMAs who have been sent to a regional processing country will never, ever, ever be settled permanently in Australia. Those opposite no longer believe it. I guess the election has passed. We can all move on. It is a bit like superannuation, really. Their super policy was costed the same as ours, except for the extra $1.4 billion in tax announced yesterday. I remember, of course, Peter Garrett making the point in 2007. What did he say? 'When we get in, we'll just change at all. We'll just change everything.' It is very typical.
By not supporting this legislation, Mr Shorten has shown that his word during the election was false—it was a lie. It is quite simple. When Mr Shorten made it very clear that there is a cigarette paper's difference between Labor and us—
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask the member to refer to members by their correct titles.
I call the member for Fadden.
The Leader of the Opposition made it very clear during the election that there was a cigarette paper's difference between the government and the opposition. We now know that to be a lie. A great, big, red, bald-faced lie is what it was, and it is a lie told by every single one—
The member for Fadden!
I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was a gross untruth perpetrated by all of those opposite, who knew full well that they did not believe in the border protection regime that we have. Those opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, have shown that their word on this issue means nothing. If those opposite were serious about border protection, they would support the bill. They would make it very clear to those seeking to come to Australia illegally that you will never, ever, ever permanently migrate here. The Leader of the Opposition is making the same mistake that Kevin Rudd made. History will show that, where there are weak borders, people smugglers will flow people in. It is not good enough to do what the member for Isaacs did in the 2013 election, quoting temporaneous circumstance and spending public money to advertise in The Sydney Morning Herald that no-one will ever come here. Remember that?
An honourable member: A full page.
It was a full page—millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money—to try and win votes. It was a most disgusting act by the member for Isaacs. That will not work. Only a suite of policies works. The opposition should know better.
It is a great pleasure for me to be here, and to see you sitting in the chair, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Broadbent. I don't know about the bloke who just spoke though! Nevertheless, I respect the right of the member for Fadden to express his view. I do not have to agree with him, and I do not.
I want to make some observations, though, about history. You see, I have been here a fair while and I well recall events in this place from the late eighties around immigration, the Tampa and the children overboard and then subsequent events leading up to today. What I recall most vividly—and I heard the member for Grey extolling the virtues of former Prime Minister John Howard—to their great shame and everlasting disgrace, is the children overboard. Do you remember the children overboard? I do. You will remember HMAS Adelaidethe ship that was used—and its personnel rescuing people because their vessel had sunk. That was not what the parliament was told and that was not what the people of Australia were told.
Do you remember who the Minister for Defence was at the time? It was Mr Reith. Do you remember him and the Prime Minister showing a photograph of a person on a boat holding up a child and saying that this was about throwing children overboard? That was a lie that I was able to expose. How was I able to expose it? I exposed it accidently. I got handed a disc with 348 photographs of the events of that day taken by Navy personnel which demonstrated absolutely clearly that there were no children thrown overboard. What this was about was people seeking to save their children as the result of a vessel sinking. To their absolute disgrace, the government used it politically to demonize those people seeking to come to this place by sea, accused them of wanting to kill their children as a matter of blackmailing the community into saying, 'Well, let's bring them in,' when, in fact, what we saw where the courageous efforts of Australian naval personnel rescuing people who were dying as a result of a vessel sinking.
None of us in this place, least of all me—Christmas Island, after all, being part of my electorate—sanctions people coming here by sea illegally; none of us. And to think that the government could, as they continually do on a daily basis, accuse the opposition of being soft on people smugglers, that somehow we want to assist people smugglers to restart their nefarious trade to provide the opportunity for young people, older people and children to die at sea yet again, is an absolute insult and an insult to all Australians. I recall the days after the most recent tragedy when we were in government and my friend, Mr O'Connor—who was then the minister responsible—was on Christmas Island and saw the events that happened that day. In the weeks that followed I was there at memorial services. No-one—no-one—can get over the sadness of those events. To have the government try and perpetrate the perfidious lie that somehow we on this side of the parliament, by our actions in opposing this legislation, somehow or other assist people smugglers is to degrade the public debate in this country.
I am sorry, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker; I know what a good person you are. But, unfortunately, it is in the DNA of some in your party to use these events for gross political purposes, knowing factually and truthfully that what they are representing is wrong. Yesterday, the debate in the parliament during question time was most unedifying. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection was grandstanding—as he is wont to do—and making gross accusations that he knows to be false, supported by the Prime Minister, who came to this place with the expectation of the Australian community that he was somehow or other different when he is not. He is just the same. Threatened or whatever by people in his own party over his leadership, he sinks to the lowest-common denominator. We have seen that in the parliament time and time again.
Of course now we have the very, very unedifying spectacle of him being exposed by the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, over claims by the Prime Minister that he sought to beg the then Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, over the issue of asylum seekers. Mr Rudd refutes those assertions and makes it very clear that if there is a lie being told it is not by him but by the Prime Minister. That raises a spectacle which is, again, unedifying, but yet it demonstrates again that truth will not prevail in this place where people are seen to use people who are in this case, on Manus Island and on Nauru as political cannon fodder—because that is what is happening again.
Let us be very, very clear. On 19 July 2013 the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced our policy—the then Labor policy—that would ensure that no asylum seeker who came by boat to Australia would ever settle in Australia. He said:
From now on, any asylum-seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees.
Our position on this piece of legislation is totally consistent with that claim—totally consistent. There is nothing in what we are saying about this current piece of legislation to put forward the proposition that somehow or another, should someone who is currently on Nauru or Manus seek and become a third-party national—in other words, they go to another country and become a citizen of that country—and then should they seek to come to Australia and settle they would not be allowed to. That is consistent. That is absolutely consistent with the proposition which was put then in 2013 by former Prime Minister Rudd.
What we are being told is that people who might want to come here on a tourist visa some time in the future, or to come and visit family sometime in the future, somehow or another equates to resettlement. No-one in this place understands that argument, because clearly it is wrong.
Obviously not.
Well, you certainly do not. When you visit the United States, or wherever you might visit overseas, do you go there to resettle? If you are on a tourist visa, do you get the right to resettle?
You are weak!
Don't be a clown! Don't be a clown!
You are weak!
And that's the problem. We see in this place people who are so insincere that they will say anything because they want to prosecute an argument that somehow or another says that the Australian Labor Party is in support of people smugglers. Well, you know it is not true. Yet you will continue to prosecute that perfidious argument. And I reckon the Australian community are wise to you. They have woken—
I don't think so.
Oh, they are not wise to you?
Not to you.
I will tell you what, son, I have news for you, brother: they have absolutely pinged you and they have pinged the Prime Minister and they have pinged the immigration minister. They know precisely what is being said here in this parliament—that the debate that we are seeing here is a construct to try and elevate the Prime Minister's political standing and try to appeal to the grossest elements in the government. The Tea Party elements of the government are ruling the government. The Tea Party elements are determining what the policy should be. The Tea Party elements, with great respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the government are determining that the arguments that should be put in this place are ones that demonise people seeking asylum in this country and ones that demonise the Labor Party for having the temerity to say that it is improper, inappropriate and wrong to say that people who are currently residing in Nauru or Manus and may want to come here at some future date on a tourist visa should be prevented from doing so.
That's right.
'That's right,' he says. Not here to resettle but to visit Bondi! 'Well, I can't have you.' You might be wealthy and you might be settled in New Zealand, Canada, the United States, Brazil, Argentina or wherever, but don't think you can come here and surf. You are not going to be allowed to. Don't think you can come here and visit Uluru—which I would love you to do because we like that tourist dollar. We can't have you. Why can't we have you? Because, you poor bugger, at some point in your life you were on Nauru or Manus, and we did not want you because you came here illegally by boat. So, as a result of that, don't you think you can come and visit Uluru or go surfing at Bondi, because you will not be allowed. You mugs. You absolute mugs.
No, you're the mug.
What an insult to the intelligence of the Australian community you are. And you think, somehow, that this gratifying and elevating argument is something we should all support.
Let's understand what others think. Amnesty International has said:
There was a time when Australia led the way on refugee protection.
Following World War II, Australia came second only to the United States on resettling European refugees. Its signature brought the Refugee Convention into force a few years later. And, in the 1970s, it resettled the third highest number of Indochinese refugees following the wars there.
In October 2016, the Turnbull government attempted, before backing down, to introduce laws that would imprison for up to two years doctors, nurses, counsellors and other health professionals if they publicly revealed physical or sexual abuse or medical negligence in Australia's offshore detention centres. How do you equate that with someone who respects human dignity? How do you equate that?
We know that that position is consistent with their current opposition to preventing people visiting Nauru and Manus Island to understand the situation which currently exists—preventing journalists and politicians travelling freely to visit these places and to interview people to get a first-hand account. The secrecy and lack of transparency is mind-boggling. And what is it for? What is it to hide? A corruption of a process by a political party that is so inept that it cannot come to terms with its obligations to treat people respectfully and with dignity. That is what this is ultimately about—understanding that people need to be treated with dignity, humanity, civilly and respectfully.
These people may be there, unfortunately, on Manus and Nauru. Most of them there would be seen as genuine refugees. We will have them resettled somewhere else. Even though they are genuine refugees, when they are—
They're not genuine.
They're not genuine refugees? You are such an idiot. You are such an idiot. Even though they are refugees, what will happen when they go to this third country and seek to come to Australia for a family visitation or, as I say, to surf at Bondi or to visit Uluru? You are going to say no. That deplorable situation should not be allowed to prevail. We will not let it because we are going to oppose this legislation. I hope that we have sufficient votes in the Senate to make sure that this legislation fails in the Senate, as it should fail here. People with respect for human dignity and for the human condition have to respect the human rights of every individual. I hope people on that side of the chamber will join with the Labor Party and oppose this legislation.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
I rise to talk about the fact that I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources on the issue of farm household allowances. While I thank the minister for responding to me within about four weeks—there are a number of ministers on that side of the House who have failed for many months to write to me on issues concerning my community—I actually asked the Deputy Prime Minister to come to my electorate of Braddon to meet farmers. I said I would facilitate everything for him so he could hear about not only the challenges that the dairy farmers in my community face but also the opportunities and the good things that farmers in my electorate are doing, whether it be exporting Wagyu beef or whether it be in our cherry, apple or berry industry.
Whilst the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to me in a two-page letter, he failed to take up my offer to come to the electorate of Braddon. I cannot even get a coalition Liberal senator to base themselves permanently in my electorate. It is as though the north-west of Tasmania is a no-go zone for this government. I appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister to come to Braddon to speak to the farmers. It is a shame he is not here to hear this right now. They want to meet with you. Stop ignoring the farming community in my electorate. Come and hear what is going on and hear the challenges and opportunities.
People working in outback tourism do an outstanding job of boosting tourism and helping our drought-affected communities build resilience. Today, I would like to acknowledge the winners of the Outback Queensland Tourism Awards held in Windorah last weekend. I would like to make special mention of a few today.
The Major Tourist Attraction Award was won by Winton's Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum of Natural History—a cutting-edge museum dedicated to our prehistoric history. Last month, the museum announced the Savannasaurus elliottoruma dinosaur that once inhabited western Queensland, according to Winton deposits. Kinnon & Co. in Longreach, who take our tourists back in time, took the prizes for the Cultural Tourism Award and the Standard Accommodation Award. The work of Alan Smith and his team at Outback Aussie Tours in Longreach won the Tour and Transport Operator Award. I was in Longreach only last weekend at one of Alan's impressive events: a dinner on the platform of the 100-year-old Longreach Railway Station. The Outstanding Contribution by a Volunteer or Volunteer Group Award was won by the Roma Saleyards Tour Leaders. Their tours are a real eye-opener for Roma-bound tourists.
I make special mention also of the Hall of Fame Awards going to the famous Birdsville Races and the Qantas Founders Museum, with its CEO Tony Martin. When it comes to Qantas aviation history, you will not find a man more passionate than Tony. The Local Government Award went to Diamantina Shire Council.
To all my colleagues, I say: pick up your bags and head to the great Australian outback. We certainly have a lot to offer.
Every year, on the last Thursday night in October, the women of the Hawkesbury march to Reclaim the Night. The main street of Richmond is closed to allow a few hundred women, children and—I am pleased to say—men to feel the freedom of walking the streets without fear. The march starts at The Women's Cottage—an amazing place where women with broken lives, fears and sadness are helped on a journey of recovery, thanks to a model in which women help women.
I congratulate Hawkesbury's new council, including mayor Mary Lyons-Bucket, deputy mayor Barry Calvert, and councillor Danielle Wheeler, for their decision that the cottage will have 10 years rent-free so it can continue its work at a time when funds are being cut left, right and centre. Our promise to The Women's Cottage, had we won government, was funding to put towards their renovation, the plans for which, now that their tenure is more secure, can progress with even greater confidence. I note the work of the whole team there, led by a committed board and The Women's Cottage new manager, Nicolle Lewis, and her predecessor, Sharon Payne.
The march is a chance to chant, shout and make a noise, knowing that, for once, the streets are ours. I acknowledge the Hawkesbury Local Area Command for their support in stopping the traffic so the march could happen and motorists' patience as we made our way down Windsor Street to Richmond Park, where, in spite of a little bit of rain, we were able to remember those whose lives were lost to sexual violence and to celebrate being women, alive and thriving.
Today is the first sitting Wednesday in November. That means tomorrow is the start of the Bennelong Cup. So come one, come all, to the Great Hall at 10.30 tomorrow morning to watch the world's greatest table-tennis players compete for the greatest prize. Five years ago, we started with just Korea. This year, we will have eight teams from across South-East Asia and Oceania competing, each seeking unending glory and eternal fame in the hope of raising the Bennelong Cup. The Bennelong Cup is not just great sport. It is about building bridges between nations within our community.
The more important arm of the competition will take place in Bennelong on Friday, when students from 20 local schools will come together to play for the Bennelong Schools Cup. This is important because anyone can play table tennis. Many kids, especially those from Asian backgrounds, do not want to play football or cricket, but anyone can play table tennis. Playing sports makes friends, it build bridges, it grows harmony and it builds multicultural communities.
So come to the Great Hall tomorrow to support sport, multiculturalism and building bridges. This is the Davis Cup of table tennis. The Great Hall will become the centre court, and you will have a front-row seat—strawberries and cream provided.
As the member for Mayo, one of my priorities is to listen to the voices of young people. A fortnight ago, I hosted my own youth forum, and last Saturday night I attended Saturday Nite Live, a youth group in Mount Barker. Saturday Nite Live provides a safe place for young people to hang out. Last weekend, they held question day, where they asked a number of community leaders questions. So I asked some questions of my own. I said, 'What would you do if you were Prime Minister for the day?' Their responses inspired and humbled me. Twelve-year-old Crystal said she would fix gender wage inequality. At 12, she is afraid that we still have wage disparity of nearly 20 per cent. Seventeen-year-old Abby said everyone needs a home. Abby recognised that homelessness exists in our Adelaide Hills community and that many families spend years waiting to secure housing.
Young people get it. They understand what the real issues are, and we need to heed their voices. We do not have a minister for youth in this parliament, so I encourage every member in this chamber to hold their own youth forums so the three million young people aged 15 to 24 have a tangible connection to this place.
I wish to draw to the attention of the House the thriving community of Highfields just north of Toowoomba on the Darling Downs in Queensland. This community has a growing population, roughly around 15,000 at present, and, based on ABS statistics, enjoys a growth rate greater than that of Brisbane, the Gold Coast or the Sunshine Coast.
I was very fortunate to attend a recent meeting at the Highfields State Secondary College, a new college built in the last couple of years. This Highfields Growth Forum was facilitated by Jim O'Dea, the president of the Highfields and District Business Connections group. We heard from passionate local speakers, speaking on behalf of the young and the old and business and community interests as well, including Sharon Barker, principal of the Highfields State Secondary College; Pastor Phil West of the Brownesholme Retirement Village; Senior Constable Chris Brameld of the Queensland Police Service; Chris Mills, managing director of Strategenics consultants; and Major Sonny Lyyn of the nearby Borneo Barracks Australian Defence Force base. These leaders, together with other representatives from developers and council, spoke with great passion about the future that they foresee for the Highfields community.
This is an example of a community focused on foresight and self-determination rather than sitting around and waiting for local, state and federal governments to show them the way. Their model of collaborative planning is something to behold.
On 28 October, I attended the Celebration of Australian Women in Surf at Manly, hosted by Sally Fitzgibbons to raise funds for the Sally Fitzgibbons Foundation. The event highlighted Australia's success in female surfing but also paid tribute to those women who fought so hard to give female surfing and sports the profile that they deserve. Five Australian world female surfing champions were present on the evening, including Phyllis O'Donnell, the first female world surfing champion from Manly in 1964, Pam Burridge, Pauline Menczer, Layne Beachley and our newest world female surfing champion, Wollongong's Tyler Wright.
The women explained just how hard it was and how much they have fought to give their sport and their skill and athleticism the recognition and sponsorship that they deserve. Phyllis O'Donnell spoke of being awarded a trophy and a packet of cigarettes in 1964, when she won the world surfing title. Pauline Menczer spoke about when the men were staying in top-class hotels the women were sleeping on someone's floor in board bags. Pam Burridge said that when the waves were no good for the men, they would send the women out in inferior conditions. These women have fought and persisted and surfing is now one of the only sports in the world where female prize money is exactly the same as for men, a true credit to these women. Many other sports should take a leaf out of surfing's book.
On the evening, they raised $15,000 for the Sally Fitzgibbons Foundation to fight childhood obesity. Congratulations to all those involved.
In my maiden speech, I said:
If you share our common Australian values, whether your heritage is from over the seas or you are an Indigenous Australian, if you look forward not backwards and if you make a contribution to our nation's future, I am here for you.
I represent one of Western Australia's most multicultural electorates. My constituents do not want divisive, backward-looking, apologetic politics; they want the very best for Australia. I want a reconciled Australia—one where we focus on our shared values and not on those things that divides us.
On the matter of 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, the complainants and the Human Rights Commission have taken action that divides us, action that creates resentment and division. I have been disappointed by the quality of the debate in this place since I arrived as a new member. We need to stick to the issues. We are a democracy and we can debate issues intelligently. On this basis, I welcome this inquiry.
The member for Barton today disgracefully referred to those advocating change as 'white men of a certain age.' What a disgusting lowering of this debate! If in this debate or any other I referred to the member for Barton as a middle-to-late-aged Aboriginal woman, there would be howls from the other side, but I will not do that, because the issue and the Australian people deserve that we debate the issues before us respectfully.
Last Friday, 4 November, my community faced large bushfires that threatened lives and homes in Londonderry, Llandilo, Berkshire Park and Cranebrook, near Penrith.
Thanks to the amazing and professional work of our local emergency services, the fire, which started around 2 pm and quickly spread to neighbouring areas, was under control by early evening that night without any loss of life or injuries. Sadly, there were seven properties that were damaged, several cars were destroyed and livestock as well. Anyone who saw the images of the fire would have seen the ferocity with which it spread through bushland close to homes, and the fact that no-one was injured is a credit to our local emergency services.
I would like to put on record today my sincere thanks on behalf of our community to the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, Fire and Rescue New South Wales, New South Wales Police, New South Wales Ambulance, and the Penrith Local Area Command, who were quick to arrest two suspects in relation to deliberately lighting the fire.
There were more than 30 crews on the scene, with around 300 firefighters and several air cranes fighting to take control of the situation.
Mr Pasin interjecting—
It is not a funny situation, the member for Barker.
I also want to thank and congratulate the teachers and aged-care workers who successfully evacuated local schools St Paul's, Xavier, and The Lakes, and Cherrywood Village. This fire is a timely reminder to update your fire plan to make sure properties are well prepared against the threat of fire. I encourage everybody to visit the rfs.nsw.gov.au website and plan and prepare for the bushfire season.
The North and South Burnett regions in my electorate of Flynn are home to some of the most fertile agricultural land in the country. With our new free trade agreements, agriculture is set to be a source of great economic growth in the future. To make this possible, we do need to keep up the pace with appropriate infrastructure. The construction of the Wellcamp airport provides opportunities for our Burnett region producers to access lucrative South-East Asian markets. The possibilities are endless: blueberries to Beijing, squab to Shanghai and citrus to Singapore.
Our roads need to be upgraded to get the produce to these new markets.
Mr Pasin interjecting—
Ms Husar interjecting—
The member for Barker and the member for Lindsay will have some respect for the member on his feet please.
The Mundubbera Durong Road and the Proston Boondooma Road are vital to the Proston communities and their biggest employer, the Smithfield feedlot. We need work to begin on these roads to lift them to a road train standard. The roads need widening to complete the shoulders and some bridge work. These road upgrades will improve efficiency and safety and increase employment in the North and South Burnett regions.
Last month I joined more than a hundred Burt residents rallying for the Armadale police station to be re-opened for public access 24/7 and for improved policing services for our community. Organised by the local state member for Armadale, Dr Tony Buti, the rally heard from WA Labor shadow minister for police, Michelle Roberts, Labor's candidate for Darling Range, Barry Urban, Labor's candidate for Jandakot, Yaz Mubarakai, and Armadale Deputy Mayor, Ruth Butterfield.
We also heard moving speeches from three Burt locals—Luke Skinner, Michael Cowan and Dedre Scholtz—who detailed how they had been affected by the lack of police services in Armadale. Five years ago, when Dedre was a 15-year-old student, she was assaulted by a man while walking home from school in Roleystone. She managed to break free and run home. Her father drove her to the Armadale police station. They arrived at 4.15 pm, but the police station closed at four. She pushed the after-hours buzzer, but nobody answered. They drove 20 kilometres through heavy traffic to Cannington police station, the only 24/7 public access police station in the south-east metropolitan police district.
It is completely unacceptable that residents in my electorate cannot access police services when they are needed most. Armadale is a major regional centre with an ever-growing population, servicing not only the people of Burt but many in the seat of Canning. I call on the Barnett government to answer the community's repeated calls and match WA Labor's commitment to a 24-hour police station in Armadale.
The big news over the last week is not the US election but rather the annual Sunshine Coast business awards. There is no region in Australia whose economy is better primed for growth than Queensland's Sunshine Coast. It enjoys the second highest growth rate of any region across the country, an unemployment rate well below the average, business confidence at an all-time high and a great infrastructure plan for the years ahead.
But it is the private sector, not the government, that drives an economy. Last Saturday night we celebrated some of the best of them: Nutri-tech, Helimods, Walker Seafoods, 4 Ingredients and others. The powerhouse that is the Sunshine Coast economy is more than these young, high-growth businesses. It is also the older businesses—family businesses in particular. I want to pay tribute today to Hall Contracting, which this week celebrates its 70th anniversary. The thing that makes this construction business particularly famous is dredging. What makes it truly great are its values as a business, the culture it embeds and its contribution to the local community. On behalf of this House let me say to Hall Contracting, the Hall family, its suppliers, buyers and staff: happy 70th!
Trove has digitised 200,000 newspapers in the four months since the federal election. It is important work and an impressive figure. I congratulate all involved. But, as any student of history will tell you, context is everything. So let us look at the context for those four months and those 200,000 newspapers. In the four months prior to the federal election, Trove digitised nearly seven million newspapers. Labor took to the election a commitment to fund Trove in full over the forward estimates. The commitment meant sparing the project from the Turnbull government's budget axe. As those opposite are so fond of noting, the Prime Minister managed to cobble together the barest of majorities and call it a win. With the win came the consequences for Trove. That meant that it was down 97 per cent in its digitisation. This is what it looks like when the government does not value the work of preserving every edition of every newspaper for access by every Australian—the work of giving future generations a glimpse into the stories that shocked us, angered us, brought us together and defined us. This is why Labor promised to save Trove and this is what happens when the Turnbull government starves it.
On a completely different matter, I want to acknowledge the presence of Acting Sub-Lieutenant Kristy Leigh, who I am hoping is in the gallery today. She is the rarest of the rare: a female submariner. I wish her and her crew all the best for their next deployment.
I wrestled over raising Tourette syndrome in my maiden speech, but I decided not to as I wanted that to focus on policy and I believed that this topic warranted its own speech. This is the first time I have raised this publicly or in any job or beyond close friends or family. I have Tourette's. Tourette syndrome is a neurological disorder. It consists of vocal and motor tics—that is, rapid, repetitive and involuntary muscle movements—for example, eye blinking, head jerking, repetitive limb movements and throat clearing. They are irresistible and eventually must be performed. Tourette's is often portrayed by the media as being swearing or coprolalia, but this is experienced by only a small subset of those affected.
It usually begins at between two and 21 years of age, with the average age of onset being about seven or eight. It occurs in about one per cent of children, with boys being three to four times more likely than girls to have it. My symptoms began between grades 1 and 3; however, I unfortunately was not diagnosed until my early 20s. This meant a lot of bullying at school for habits, which many kids with Tourette's experience. That is why I am proud to launch the Parliamentary Friendship Group of Tourette Syndrome today at 4 pm, joined by the President of Tourette Syndrome Association of Australia, Robyn Latimer, and runner-up in The Voice, Adam Ladell, who also has Tourette's and is with us today. I hope Adam and I are evidence that people with Tourette's can achieve anything. With this group I hope to bring awareness of Tourette's, promote earlier diagnosis, government interest and be an example for people with Tourette's.
I rise today, on US election day, hoping, with many of my colleagues and with women around the world, that the US will deliver its first female president at the end of the day's count. This is a deep hope on this side of the chamber and, I am sure, for many opposite as well. It takes me back to thinking about our former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. Of course, we have already delivered a female leader in this country—Prime Minister Julia Gillard—who served in the seat that I now hold, the seat of Lalor. It took me to a place of compare and contrast. I was thinking about a minority government and the careful negotiations that were done with crossbenchers and senators and the prolific legislative program that was carried out in that era. It left me aghast and asking the question that our journalists around the country are now asking: what is the point of this Prime Minister, who cannot seem to negotiate with anybody or have a legislative agenda, which leaves us in this chamber with constructs around scaring the Australian public rather than governing, no matter how many times there is a new three-word slogan? 'Jobs and growth'—how is that going? It is not. 'Stop the deficit'—how is that going? What has happened to the deficit? (Time expired)
Last week I was thrilled to tour the Mid Murray Council area of my electorate. The communities of Mannum and Morgan are strong river communities with exciting projects on the go. During my visit to Mannum, I was pleased to announce support for the Mannum Dock Museum of River History, with funding for restorations to the PS Mayflower. This funding is being delivered through the Maritime Museums of Australia Project Support Scheme. Morgan's PS Canally Restoration Committee will also receive funding support though the same scheme, for the PS Canally. Both Morgan and Mannum have a proud paddle-steamer heritage, and I am so pleased that the federal government is helping to keep that heritage alive.
The wharves in both Mannum and Morgan are also being upgraded, thanks to our National Stronger Regions Fund, and I am looking forward to what these projects will do to enliven these river communities as visitors travelling along the river stop off to enjoy what these already thriving towns have to offer.
I was excited also to see a new playground in Morgan officially open last week. This is a project which has been a long time in the planning, and I was so pleased to see that it was very much worth the wait.
I want to give huge thanks to the mayor of Mid Murray Council, Dave Burgess, for his hospitality. Special mention must also go to Deb Alexander, whose passion for river communities is so evident; Phil Reed, Chairman of the PS Canally Restoration Committee; and Rob Bowring OAM, PS Mayflower's project leader.
At listening posts across the Central Coast I was humbled to meet so many people who care for others in my community. At my listening post in Woongarrah, I met Diedre, whose adult daughter lives with complex disability. She is worried about what will happen to her daughter when she is too old to care for her. At Toukley I met Nicole, whose father suffered a spinal injury and is now dealing with the aged-care system, years before they ever expected or wanted to. At Tumbi Umbi, I met Denis, who has cared for and lost both his parents, and has preserved their memory in books.
Around 27,000 people on the Central Coast care for someone each and every day, often without respite, and they need our support. Ours is a dedicated, compassionate community; we care for those around us and we want to help. We have people like Bev, who, with her husband, Steve, helped to start YODSS, the Central Coast Younger Onset Dementia Social Support, a lifeline for those who live with dementia and those who care for them.
I am sure they are welcoming, as am I, the release today in Parliament House of the new Diagnosis, treatment and care for people with dementia: a consumer companion guide. It is important that leaders and policymakers are aware of the impact that dementia will have on our communities in the future, as well as the services and care available to those living with dementia, and their families. We deserve quality, local and well-funded support services to help us help others.
My voice in this place is my community's voice. To the residents who have given me their time and shared their stories with me: thank you.
Recently I announced that the Turnbull government has committed to upgrading the Cape Leveque Road, which will unlock the tourism potential of the beautiful Dampier Peninsula in my electorate, as well as improve safety and accessibility all-year round for the communities along this road. This project is being funded through the government's $600 million Northern Australia Roads Program, which was born from the government's northern Australia white paper, a key blueprint which will lead to greater development in Australia's north.
In addition, this government has committed to funding of over $24.2 million towards the Great Northern Highway to widen and improve access for heavy vehicles to Wyndham port, as well as over $58.5 million towards the Great Northern Highway near Halls Creek, replacing four low-level floodways with new high-level structures.
I have also recently announced nearly $30.8 million to replace the existing low-level one-lane Bow River bridge with a new high-level two-lane bridge. This is in addition to $12.5 million towards the widening and realignment of the Great Northern Highway between the Ord River and Turkey Creek which is being funded through the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program. The Pilbara roads are also even safer, following the completed work on the Great Northern Highway's realignment at the intersection of North West Coastal Highway and the Great Northern Highway.
The Turnbull government has kept its word about developing Australia's north to make it even greater not just for today or even for tomorrow but for many years to come, and it illustrates that this government is fair dinkum about developing the north.
This week leading up to Remembrance Day has been a significant one for our veterans and our serving men and women. I have spoken about my recent trip as part of the ADF Parliamentary Program and the pride we can all take in the professionalism of our Defence Force and also the Defence civilian men and women who are serving in the Middle East. I have spoken about the meaning of Remembrance Day, of it being a time to think of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of this great nation. On Friday we will remember the fallen, their families and those left behind. On Friday, Remembrance Day, I will attend a farewell parade for 1st Brigade in Darwin. They are on their way to the Middle East, and our thoughts and prayers go with them.
This week, after 50 years, we saw some veterans of the Vietnam War finally honoured. I spoke with a well-known Territorian, Frank Alcorta, who has received the Star of Gallantry after 50 years. He asked how veterans in the Northern Territory were going. Unfortunately, Territory veterans are not represented by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in the way they should be. I have continually asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to do something about that. He has not even had the decency to respond to the letters from the RSL— (Time expired)
I want to talk about Graham Manning, who is a dairy farmer and my neighbour in the south-west of Western Australia. I have worked with and for the industry for many years. Graham faced his toughest day when he was forced out of the industry because of a decision by a milk processor.
The Manning family were pioneers in the dairy industry in Western Australia. In fact, their first dairy was where the state parliament now sits. Graham was producing milk of amazing quality. For 14 years, it was in the top five per cent of the best quality milk in Australia. I want to thank Graham; his father, David; his wife, Jane; and their whole family for their commitment to the dairy industry. I understand their stress and pressure.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I inform the House that the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science will be absent from question time today for personal reasons, and the Minister for Defence Industry will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Senate inquiry into the legal services direction issued by the Attorney-General. Can the Prime Minister confirm the Senate inquiry found, 'The lack of respect that the Attorney-General has displayed towards the Solicitor-General and the state of their relationship prior to the Solicitor-General’s resignation demonstrates his lack of competence to hold the office of Attorney-General'? Does the Prime Minister still support the direction that was issued by the Attorney-General?
Mr Keenan and Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Minister for Justice and the Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
Over the years, I think we have all learnt that the honourable and distinguished senior counsel opposite does not hold his counterpart, the Attorney-General, in the highest of regard. Over the years, I have picked up that barristers often have reservations about the talents of each other. Mr Speaker, the Attorney-General has my full confidence. As you know, the majority report was written by his political opponents and should be viewed in that light.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the importance of new policies to secure Australia's border and the consequence of alternate policies?
Opposition members interjecting—
At this point yesterday, in question time, I made it very clear the level of noise was far too high. It is already too high before the Prime Minister has been able to utter a word in response to the question. It is unsatisfactory. I am not going to issue repeated warnings. I want to make it as clear as I can to members who are interjecting that they will need to be dealt with. The parliament cannot operate with this level of disruption, and it is not what the public have come to see.
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand will leave under standing order 94(a).
The reaction from the opposition benches is entirely consistent with the complacency their party showed when they were in government in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 when, ignoring all of the evidence and all of the experience, they unpicked John Howard's tough and effective border protection policies. As a result—as a direct consequence—we saw 50,000 unauthorised arrivals, the opening of 17 new detention centres in Australia, an immigration blowout in cost of $11 billion, 8,000 children put into detention, the reopening of regional processing centres on Nauru and Manus and, most tragically of all, 1,200 deaths at sea of which we know.
The Labor Party then, when Kevin Rudd returned, claimed they had learnt their lesson. They said then that they would be on a unity ticket with the coalition. They said and Kevin Rudd said, and honourable members opposite—many of them echoed his words. The member for Isaacs, in fact, did. The member for Watson did. They said, 'Nobody who seeks to come to Australia by boat shall ever be able to settle in Australia.' They said that in 2013, and that has been the position they have taken since then or they claim to have taken since then. The reality is it was the coalition that stopped the boats. It was the coalition government's determination to stop the boats, to ensure that our borders were secure.
We know how serious a threat irregular migration is. The foreign minister spoke yesterday of John Kerry saying it was viewed in Europe as an existential threat. When I was at the United Nations only a few weeks ago, one leader after another from Europe talked to me about the extraordinary threat they face from irregular migration—what it does to promote intolerance, what it does to undermine a civil discourse, and what it does to undermine their union.
Maintaining our border is absolutely essential. When we put in this legislation before the House this week we asked the Labor Party to do no more than prove, again, that they are on that unity ticket and to do no more than send with us the strongest, most unequivocal message to the people smugglers that you will not succeed. And they have failed us. They have failed Australia. They have failed the integrity of our borders.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On 19 October the Prime Minister defended the Attorney-General's 37 new appointments to the AAT saying, 'I have no doubt that all the persons appointed were excellently qualified.' Given there was no merits based selection process, no advice from the department, no advertising of positions, simply hand-picked by the Attorney-General, what exactly were the excellent qualifications that justified these people receiving jobs paying up to $370,000 a year?
I am glad that the honourable member is interested in the appointment of those individuals. I will take the question on notice and make sure he receives an answer in respect of their respective qualifications.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the steps the government is taking to further bolster Australia's robust border protection measures? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for her question. This is a very important issue because, as people know, the Australian public has watched this issue for a long period of time and the Australian public wants for their Prime Minister and their government people who have the ability to stare down the threats that we face on the national security front. People want us to have strong and secure borders. They want us to bring people to our country who deserve a new start in life. This government provides a record number each year of places under the Refugee and Humanitarian program and we will continue to do that. But the Australian public will not support that program if we allow the people smugglers to get back into business. The people smugglers in Indonesia, across the rest of South-East Asia and, indeed, across the world have, of course, not gone away.
This Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of this week wanted people to believe that somehow the problem of people smuggling had disappeared, had evaporated and that there was no ongoing problem, that somehow the 14,000 people in Indonesia who are waiting to get onto boats today have mystically disappeared; somehow the tragedy we see in the Mediterranean and the problem of people who are moving through Europe or are coming from Africa have dissolved. This is a Leader of the Opposition who is completely out of step with the Australian people and yet he went the last election saying that he would provide a unity ticket with the coalition and adopt the successful policies that we have been presiding over for the last three years. Those policies have stopped the boats.
It is true that the government this week has introduced legislation which will provide a further strengthening of our borders. It is absolutely apparent to all concerned that this is necessary legislation. This is a problem that is with us now, that we are addressing now and that will not go away yet the only advice offered by the Leader of the Opposition as to why he would not support this bill, which is designed to stare down people smugglers, is that he is worried about people in 40 years' time applying for a tourist visa to come to our country. I do not know what his prediction is—and I do not want this to come as a big shock to the markets or to the Australian people—but there probably will be a Labor government within the next four decades. It will not be good for the economy, it will not be good for unemployment and it certainly will not be good for border protection. But if the Labor Party believes that, at the 20 or 30-year mark, they want to abolish this legislation, they can do it.
But let me make this prediction, Mr Speaker: this Leader of the Opposition, just as he went the last election, will go to the next election asking the Australian public to trust him on border protection. Every day that goes by, the Australian public is reminded again that the people smugglers won Lotto twice with Rudd and Gillard, but they have struck the jackpot the third time around with this Leader of the Opposition, who is the weakest Labor leader—(Time expired)
Members on my left and right, just before I call the next question I would like to inform the House that we have present in the chamber this afternoon Her Excellency Menna Rawlings, the British High Commissioner, and Mr Alok Sharma, the member for Reading West in the United Kingdom. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you both.
I would also like to welcome the New Zealand High Commissioner, His Excellency Mr Chris Seed. Welcome to you all.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Attorney-General's 37 new appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal included: Liberal donors, former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates and Liberal Party operatives, such as Theo Tavoularis, Saxon Rice, John Sosso, Nicholas McGowan—
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will cease interjecting; the Leader of the House will cease interjecting. I am trying to listen to the question, which members expect me to rule on. The member for Melbourne Ports is warned. The member for Isaacs will begin his question from the start and the clock will be reset.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Attorney-General's 37 new appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal included: Liberal donors, former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates and Liberal Party operatives, such as Theo Tavoularis, Saxon Rice, John Sosso, Nicholas McGowan and Bruce McCarthy? Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he referred to 'excellent qualifications'?
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The minister for immigration!
( It is typical, I may say, of the member for Isaacs that he seeks to defame people by smear and innuendo. He has no substantive matter to question any of these people. If he does, he should raise it. The Leader of the Opposition has asked about their qualifications. Those can be provided by the Attorney in due course. But, Mr Speaker, what about an appointment that was fundamentally more momentous than an appointment to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? What about the Leader of the Opposition's hand-picked member of the Senate—Kimberley Kitching? What did the Leader of the Opposition—
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right!
do to satisfy himself that, contrary to the finding of the Heydon royal commission, she was truthful in her evidence? What did the Leader of the Opposition do to satisfy himself that the royal commission had no basis for referring her conduct to the Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation and consideration for bringing criminal charges against her?
Ms Henderson interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The member for Corangamite and the Leader of the House!
Kimberley Kitching's conduct has been the subject of findings of a royal commission presided over by a retired High Court judge; it has been the subject of findings by the Fair Work Commission. The fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition, despite many opportunities, has not had the guts to stand up and say that Kimberley Kitching is qualified to be in the Senate and the findings—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
Just before I call the member from Melbourne, we have a number of distinguished visitors with us today. I would also like to welcome the Premier of South Australia, the Hon. Jay Wetherill, to the House today as well as the former Senator, the Hon. Helen Coonan, and Peter Lindsay, the former member for Herbert and the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Defence. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome to all of you.
Honourable members: Hear, Hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the election you have attacked renewable energy and defended coal, you have proposed permanent bans on refugees coming to Australia seeking our help, and now you are caving in to Senator Pauline Hanson and the Donald Trumps in your party on race hate laws. Will you rule out allowing Donald Trump style hate speech to flourish in Australia by changing the law to make it easier to say racist things, or are you now so beholden to the far Right that you are letting Pauline Hanson write your policy? Prime Minister, do you actually believe in this Trump-style agenda, or are you just content with being the poor man's Tony Abbott?
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I have cautioned many members on referring to members by their correct title.
He's the next President of the United States. You should call him President Trump!
The member for Hughes will leave under standing order 94(a). I have cautioned many members on this, and I have made it clear I am not going to keep cautioning them continually. The member for Gellibrand learnt this in the 90 second statements; a pity he is not here to hear it now. Members will refer to members by their correct titles. I am not allowing an opportunity to rephrase the question. I am moving to the next question.
The member for Hughes then left the chamber.
Mr Speaker, there was no other referral.
No, I have made a ruling. You did not refer to the member for Warringah by his correct title. I have made it very clear. I am not going to keep repeating this day by day. The member for Melbourne will resume his seat.
Sit down, you commie!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House on the dangers of trivialising border security, and of the ongoing need to send clear signals to people smugglers that their trade will never be tolerated?
Mr Hill interjecting—
The Prime Minister will just pause for a second. The member for Bruce will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
I thank the honourable member for his question. As the honourable member understands very well, our nation, the most successful multicultural nation in the world, is built on a foundation of mutual respect, on a foundation where Australians understand that it is their government which determines who comes to Australia, it is their government which determines which refugees come to Australia and it is their government which determines the integrity of their borders.
In the world today we face a scourge of people smuggling. These are multibillion-dollar criminal organisations. They are operating globally, they are a threat to democracies, they are a threat to the political integrity of many countries and they are a threat to our multicultural harmony.
Then do something effective about it.
The member for Cowan!
We take this threat seriously.
Then do something effective about it.
The member for Cowan will leave under standing order 94(a). I cannot keep warning her.
The member for Cowan then left the chamber.
We understand that the people smugglers need the clearest possible message. They need a message which says unequivocally: you will not be able to get your passengers to Australia, full stop. You will not succeed. That is what enables us to have one of the most generous humanitarian programs in the world. That is what has enabled us to take 12,000 refugees from the conflict zone in addition to our annual quota.
But what have we heard from the Labor Party this week? They have scoffed and trivialised border security. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday said:
… we're not on a unity ticket to stop tourists.
Are the people smugglers tourist operators? Is that what the Labor Party believes? Are they just tourists? Is this the way in which the Labor Party treats national security? We have seen this complacency before. This is precisely the scoffing, sneering, patronising complacency of the Labor Party that was in evidence some years ago under Kevin Rudd, when he mocked members of the Liberal Party and members of the National Party when we challenged him for his neglect of our border security. The consequence was the tragedy that followed: 50,000 unauthorised arrivals, 1,200 deaths at sea of which we know, more misery, and people put into Nauru and Manus that we have been endeavouring to resettle, with no thanks to and no help from the Labor Party that put them there. It is time the Labor Party took border security seriously. It is time they owned up to their responsibilities as an alternative government, and stood up for Australia and the integrity of our borders.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training said that the $1.84 million grant to a college linked to former Senator Day:
… went through all the normal processes …
Can the Prime Minister outline what these normal processes were?
I thank the member for Sydney for her question. The point that the member for Sydney is making is completely erroneous, and the facts of what she has said do not bear on the actual issues that Senator Birmingham has been dealing with in vocational education and training. The program about which the member for Sydney has been asking questions did not exist when Senator Birmingham visited the North East Vocational College referred to by the member for Sydney. It did not actually exist, in which case the claims that she has been trying to make against Senator Birmingham are not made out, so the premise of the question is quite false. When the North East Vocational College applied for the grants, through the normal processes, the financial viability tests were carried out correctly by the department, and their obligations were fulfilled. Senator Day had absolutely no financial involvement with the North East Vocational College then or now.
Has the minister completed his answer?
I have completed my answer.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any proposals that would treat foreign agricultural workers better than Australian agricultural workers? What impact would such an outcome have on young jobseekers in regional Australia?
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The member for Deakin will cease interjecting.
I thank the honourable member for his question. Yes, I do know of an alternative policy that is going to discriminate against Australian workers over foreign workers. I note also that in this backpacker tax issue we had negotiated with so many people an outcome that was fair and that also would attract labour from overseas, an outcome that was backed by the NFF, which said:
At the rate of 19 per cent, Australian wages are competitive with New Zealand and Canada and we can start to reconnect with working holiday makers …
It was an outcome that was supported by New South Wales farmers, who were happy at the proposed 19 per cent rate; an outcome that was supported by the Northern Territory Farmers Association, which had confidence in the new rate; an outcome that was supported by QFF; an outcome that was supported by the VFF; an outcome that was supported by the Lockyer fruitgrowers. It was an outcome that was supported by so many. But now there is this strange amalgam where we have the Senator Jacqui Lambie, Bill Shorten, One Nation pact—
The Deputy Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr Speaker—
No, I am addressing the House. When I have concluded addressing the House, I will hear the Manager of Opposition Business. I have made it very clear that members need to be referred to by their correct titles. I have made it very clear with the member for Melbourne, and I have not allowed him to ask his question.
Mr Burke interjecting—
You got one right, and the other wrong. The question I have ruled out of order. I have repeatedly asked this. I am clamping down on it. I know it is hard, but that is where I am going to leave it, and I am going to leave the Deputy Prime Minister at that point and go to the next question.
My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to the previous answer from the minister in relation to the $1.84 million grant to a college linked to former Senator Day. Given that this $1.84 million grant was almost half a million dollars more than was requested by the college, that it was awarded without any open procurement process and that it was informed by a report co-authored by Liberal Party politicians, is this really normal process for your government?
It is remarkable to be lectured by the Labor Party on fiscal rectitude. This is the Labor Party, who were responsible for the home insulation program, colloquially called the pink batts program, which was responsible for killing people.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
The home insulation program was responsible for the deaths of young Australians. They were put in danger in the ceilings of homes in Australia because of the Labor Party's pink batts program. And this party dares to lecture us about the delivery of programs. You should hang your heads in shame. You should be embarrassed to come into this House and ask us, who are fixing up the mess of the six years of the Gillard-Rudd government, questions to do with fiscal rectitude.
Mr Swan interjecting—
The member for Lilley used an unparliamentary term that I heard clearly. He will withdraw.
I will not withdraw. I will not be lectured to by that minister in that way.
The member for Lilley will leave under 94(a).
The member for Lilley then left the chamber.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will be following, if he interjects, on the member for Lilley.
The member for Sydney on a point of order.
Well, it is a point of order on relevance. It would be great if the minister began to address the process that was gone through to award this grant.
I have been listening to the minister. The minister is in order.
Mr Speaker—
If the member for Sydney wishes to argue with me, she will not be in the chamber. I am not going to debate these points of order endlessly. I will hear them, I will rule and we will move on. And I remind the member for Sydney that she has already been warned and there has been a general warning issued.
Of course, I was commenting on the delivery of programs, about which I was asked, and proper processes. As the shadow minister for education during the Rudd government, I saw firsthand how the school hall program was rolled out by the then minister, Julia Gillard. It was a $16 billion program whereby school halls were built next door to other school halls, whereby school halls in country towns were built next to town halls that had been used for over 100 years for school assemblies—money pushed out the door.
To respond specifically to the question from the member for Sydney, the North East Vocational College received exactly the same grant as the four other colleges in the pilot program—exactly the same grant. The minister, Senator Birmingham, did exactly what was required of him in his responsibilities. The department fulfilled its responsibilities. Therefore, the premise of the member's question is false.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the importance of developing policies that return the budget to balance and grow the economy? How is the government reducing the tax burden on hardworking Australians to improve their standards of living, secure their jobs and make it easier for them to find employment and save for their retirement?
I thank the member for Barker for his question. As he knows, in the budget, we announced tax cuts for wage-earners, and they have already passed this parliament. We announced tax cuts for small businesses, to extend the definition of a small business from $2 million to $10 million, which would benefit 2.2 million Australians working in 100,000 companies. That has been opposed by those opposite. In the budget, we announced new superannuation tax concessions for working Australians who earn up to 90 per cent of their income from non-wage sources like running a business. That is opposed by those opposite. In addition, we proposed in the budget new super concessions for women and carers returning to the workforce to be able to catch up on their superannuation with new concessions. That is opposed by those opposite.
Instead, those opposite have another proposal. They think all of that should not be happening—small business should be paying more tax, and those who are earning an income through a business should not get access to superannuation concessions. But, by alternative, they believe that foreign workers in this country should be given a tax cut—that is the proposal put by those opposite—which will cost the budget $500 million. Those opposite are proposing a tax cut for foreign workers while, at the same time, saying small business owners and people working for small businesses should be paying more tax.
Today, I read a transcript of someone who I thought would be supporting the coalition's position of ensuring that Australian jobs would come first. He said:
We've got a big issue when you have got people coming here on 457, 417 visas, these are visas—
this is the backpacker visa—
which give people from overseas temporary work rights in Australia yet we've got auto-electricians and mechanics and carpenters who can't get work in Australia. This government should be prioritising Australian jobs.
That is what the Leader of the Opposition said on 9 November, today. And what he is suggesting to help Australian workers is that we should be giving foreign workers a tax cut—and not just a tax cut, but a tax cut that is unfunded and which they want to hit Australian taxpayers for with a $500 million hit to the budget. They want to reduce the savings of Australians. They want to hold on to higher tax rates for small businesses, but they want to give foreign workers a big, fat tax cut. What a bunch of hypocrites! At the end of the day, we on this side will deliver real tax cuts for Australian workers. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Did the north-west college linked to Bob Day receive the amount they asked for, or did the government give this organisation linked to Bob Day more than they actually asked for? Is it normal process for this government to provide organisations more money than they asked for?
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left! The Leader of the House on a point of order.
I was actually going to answer the question, Mr Speaker.
I am sorry; it was the way you approached the despatch box.
I am happy to take a point of order, if you would prefer, Mr Speaker.
The Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training has the call.
Apart from the fact that the college is called the North East Vocational College, as opposed to north-west—but I am prepared to overlook yet another bit of sloppy work by the Manager of Opposition Business on behalf of his leader, for which I would have been sacked when I was the Manager of Opposition Business, I can tell you, under the current member for Warringah—
Opposition members interjecting—
who would never have put up with me making such a fundamental error. But let's pretend that the question was correct. The simple fact is that being lectured by the Labor Party on these matters shows a great audacity. The Leader of the Opposition has shown a preparedness to tell the great big Labor lie for most of his political career—in fact, the Mediscare campaign really took the cake. But, now, rather than focusing on the issues that mums and dads in Australia care about—things like energy prices, energy security, issues with their incomes through social security or tax cuts or how they are going to pay their mortgages on their homes, housing affordability or, in fact, even national security issues, like what is going on at the moment in Mosul, Raqqa and elsewhere in the world—the Labor Party is trying to blacken the name of former Senator Bob Day and cast aspersions on the reputations of senators.
It shows a particular audacity for the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, to wade into the issue of who should or should not be in the Senate, because we all know that he has amongst his number Senator Kimberley Kitching sitting in the Senate representing Victoria right now.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The question went specifically to whether or not the amount given was more than the amount which had been requested.
I have listened to the point of order, and I am listening very carefully to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training's answer. As he well knows, being the Leader of the House, he has some ability to compare and contrast, but that cannot be all of the remainder of his answer.
I think the Manager of Opposition Business makes a reasonable point. I am surprised that I got that far. Nevertheless, I will come back to Senator Kitching later in question time, because there is quite a lot that people in the House of Representatives and the general public want to know about Senator Kitching.
The reality is that the North East Vocational College received exactly the same grant as every other college in the pilot program.
Why was it more than they asked for?
I hear the member for Sydney interjecting about this issue.
None of us should be hearing the member for Sydney.
Quite right, Mr Speaker.
If we hear the member for Sydney interjecting again, it will be the last.
It pains me to say, but her voice pierces above the rest of the ruck, Mr Speaker. This is the member who, when she was the Minister for Health, was responsible for the National Housing Affordability Scheme, NHAS, upon which hundreds of millions of dollars was spent to build housing for international students. The biggest group that accessed the National Housing Affordability Scheme, which was a scheme designed for low-income and homeless Australians, was international students. (Time expired)
I inform the House that we have present in the chamber this afternoon the Australian Political Exchange Council’s 24th delegation from the People’s Republic of China, led by Ms Wang Ting. On behalf of the House we extend to you a warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister inform the House why the implementation of the government's working holiday-maker reform package is important for Australian small businesses, including those in the seat of Flynn?
I thank the member for Flynn for his question. He understands as much as anyone about small business, because he ran petroleum companies, pubs, hardware stores. And, in his electorate of Flynn, that makes an enormous contribution to the growth of the Australian economy, through the cultivation of sugarcane, fruits, nuts and grain. He knows that backpackers support the farmers and the producers in his electorate. That is why he so passionately fought for a fair and just outcome.
Our working holiday-maker reform package proposes a reduction in the tax rate, from 32½ per cent to 19 per cent. It ensures backpackers will pay a fair amount of tax on their earnings, and it is internationally competitive. The impact of the Turnbull-Joyce government's reform package is financially neutral. It is fully offset within the budget. Labor refuses to seek costings for its new and very irresponsible proposal. Labor does not understand regional Australia. It neither cares nor knows about regional Australia. It is playing politics. It has backed down on its election commitment. There is nothing new there.
It fails to recognise that backpackers make an important contribution to Australia's $43.4 billion tourism industry and that they are a key source of labour, particularly in regional Australia. Farmers are being used as political fodder, which should come as no surprise when it comes from a Labor Party which in government cut funding to our regions, stood in the way of dam construction and attempted to ruin our live cattle industry. Labor's proposal to reduce the backpacker tax rate to 10½ per cent completely ignores the solid support that the government has received from the National Farmers Federation no less.
What we are seeing from the Labor Party is an absolute slap in the face to many of the regional and small businesses who are farmers, local publicans, cafe owners, tourism operators—those who rely on seasonal workforces and backpacker labour. It is an affront to Australian workers.
At least we are sticking up for Australian workers on this side of the House. What would Labor like to see? Fruit rotting on the ground? A pub with no cheer? We all know that backpackers who earn their money in regional Australia often then travel the countryside, experiencing what this great land has to offer, further contributing to our economy, whilst experiencing all the wonderful things that Australia has to offer.
The stalling of the passage of legislation for this means that backpackers will be liable for the 32.5 per cent tax rate from New Year's Day, creating uncertainty and instability for the agriculture, horticulture, tourism and hospitality sectors. Labor has no understanding, no plan for Australian small business; they just want to sit there as idle puppets of their union mates. (Time expired)
The Prime Minister has praised the action taken by his Special Minister of State in August 2016 to investigate Bob Day's eligibility to sit in the Senate. Given that the Special Minister of State relied upon the same information that his Minister for Finance had back in February 2016, why didn't the Minister for Finance take the same action back then that the Special Minister of State took in August 2016?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I note—as I did yesterday and, I think, the day before—that the Minister for Finance has set out all of the circumstances, the reason for the actions that he took, in his comprehensive speech to the Senate. I refer the honourable member to it.
My question is to the Minister for Defence, Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline why registered organisations need to be regulated to ensure that employer and employee organisations always act in the best interests of their members? Who stands to benefit from these reforms? Who is standing in the way of this outcome?
I thank the member for Fisher for this question. It is a much better question than the ones I have been receiving from the member for Sydney and the Leader of the Opposition. It goes to an issue that Australians very much care about, and that is how to make sure we have honest unions and honest union leaders.
For that reason, the government has introduced the registered organisations commission bill, has taken it to an election and won that election on a double dissolution trigger, giving us the mandate that we require for the registered organisations commission bill to be passed. The registered organisations commission bill will help to achieve honest unions and honest union leaders.
I am asked by the member for Fisher: who will benefit? It is very much in Labor's interests to clean-up the union movement. They are connected as if by an umbilical cord to the union movement, so the government is trying to assist the Labor Party to be connected to a union movement that is honest, rather than a union movement that is dishonest. We have seen the latest evidence of this recently in the appointment of Senator Kitching to the Senate by the Leader of the Opposition, over the very strenuous objections of many of his current frontbench and the Victorian Labor Party—including, as I understand it, the shadow Attorney-General.
This is actually a very serious issue for the Leader of the Opposition. We certainly had some fun talking about Senator Kitching's failure to do things like pay her parking fines, but it is a very important issue. What did the Leader of the Opposition do to satisfy himself that Senator Kitching had the qualifications necessary to sit in the Senate? And what did he do to satisfy himself that the reference by the trade union royal commission to the Commonwealth DPP for Senator Kitching impersonating six union leaders was to be dismissed, had no foundation? And what did the Leader of the Opposition do to assure himself that Senator Kitching has not perjured herself in the trade union royal commission? In the event that the Commonwealth DPP convicts Senator Kitching of the reference sent to them by the trade union royal commission, that will be proof positive that she perjured herself in the trade union royal commission.
There are six witnesses who appeared in the trade union royal commission—witnesses Lee, Govan, McCubben, Porter, Morrey and Leszcynski—who contradicted Senator Kitching. Six Labor figures from the union that she was a member of have contradicted Senator Kitching in the trade union royal commission—some in a way that would put themselves in danger. What advice did the Leader of the Opposition seek from the member for Isaacs, the shadow Attorney-General, about the qualifications of Senator Kitching and about whether it was appropriate for her to be appointed to the Senate? I think we will find that he did seek advice and that he received it. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. It has been revealed today that the New South Wales Liberal government has lobbied credit rating agencies to defend their AAA rating in anticipation of the Commonwealth losing its AAA credit rating. Is the Turnbull government so chaotic and incompetent that even Mike Baird has lost confidence in this Treasurer's ability to defend Australia's AAA rating?
I thank the member for his question. At the last election, those opposite thought the way to retain the AAA credit rating of this country was to increase the deficit of the country by $16½ billion. That is what they proposed at the last election. But, after their latest incursion into this area, we know that that deficit would be even higher, because we know that members opposite want to fund a tax cut for foreign workers which would cost the budget another $500 million. And they all somehow think that this is actually going to improve the financial position of this country.
The member for Hunter, earlier today—or yesterday, I think it was—talked about what the impact of the tax cut for foreign workers would be on the budget. He basically said, 'It just means we'll have less money, and we'll just have to deal with that.' That is the approach of those opposite—like the member for Jagajaga, when she used to talk about how we will find the money to deal with child care: 'We'll find it somewhere. It'll turn up somewhere or somehow over the rainbow.' That is the approach of those opposite. What those opposite do when they sit on these benches is carelessly engage in reckless spending, drive up taxes, drive up debt and drive up the deficit. As a result, they have placed the nation's finances in the position that we inherited as a government.
We have $40 billion of budget improvement measures that we put to the last election. More than a quarter of those have already been passed through this parliament, but the rest have to pass. The rest have to pass to ensure that we can put Australia in the strongest possible position when it comes to the assessment of our financial position by external agencies, but those opposite do not support those measures. They do not. They do not support those measures. What they want to do is drive up the deficit and drive up the debt, and they somehow think that that is an answer to this nation's economic challenges and to returning the budget to surplus.
I ask those opposite to reflect on the question they just asked. If they want to protect Australia's credit rating, then they should take the advice of Standard & Poor's, who have said quite plainly that the government's fiscal trajectory, our fiscal trajectory, to return the budget to surplus requires the support of this parliament in this chamber and in the other chamber. If you are concerned about the credit rating, pass our savings, pass our revenue measures and allow us to get on with the job of achieving what you failed to do.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister explain how the development at Perth Airport will support Austria's tourism industry and create jobs and economic growth for Western Australia? How is the government supporting this project, and is the minister aware of impediments to its progress?
I am very pleased to get a question from the member for Swan. I know the member for Swan has been a great advocate for infrastructure in his electorate, including the grand gateway near Perth Airport. It is indeed a great vision and it is great to have his advocacy for it.
Western Australia welcomed some 888,000 international visitors in the last year, which represents an increase of some 19 per cent over the past three years. This is on top of the 9.2 million domestic visitors who travel to WA, which represents an increase of some 40 per cent since 2013—great news for the tourism industry in Western Australia and, particularly, for Perth Airport. I know that the member for Swan was at the official opening of the new airport terminal, which was opened by the member for Stirling, and that he has congratulated Perth Airport in the House on this development.
This is just the beginning of developments and investment in tourism at Perth Airport. The current vision for the airport is a world-class airport experience operating from one precinct, airport central, that will offer terminal and passenger facilities for some 40 million passengers a year and beyond. On top of this, the CEO of the Qantas group, Alan Joyce, has confirmed that the airline is looking seriously at a Perth to London direct flight, once the airline receives the new 787 Dreamliner. This is great news for employment and tourism in Australia's West Coast.
But I note the member also asked about any impediments to the development of Perth Airport. I bring to the attention of the House an article in The Australian newspaper from earlier this year that had the headline, 'CFMEU officials fined over Perth Airport project blockade.' The article said:
The Federal Court found senior officials from the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union have a "cavalier attitude" to complying with industrial laws as it handed out fines of $21,000 over a blockade at the $80 million Perth Airport expansion project.
In a judgment, the Justice found that 'the CFMEU arranged for about 100 protesters to blockade the airport project in 2013'. Does Labor ever say anything against the CFMEU on this? Do you ever hear from the shadow tourism minister about the militant and extreme CFMEU? You never hear a peep. The reason you never hear from them, the reason Labor never says anything about the CFMEU, the reason the Labor Party is silent about the direct links between the Labor Party and bikies, between the Labor Party, the CFMEU and, indeed, organised crime—the reason you never hear about complaints from the Labor Party—
The minister will resume his seat. I am going to hear the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order, and I suspect—
The old minister for tourism overstepped the mark—
I have not called the Leader of the Opposition yet. There will not be a debate about this across the chamber, Minister and Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The member for Deakin will leave under 94(a).
The member for Deakin then left the chamber.
The interjections prevented me from hearing everything that the minister was saying. I am going to call the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
The minister for tourism knew what he is doing. He made an absolutely inappropriate impugning of Labor and he should get up and withdraw his most unparliamentary remark.
I hate to say, if the minister impugned a particular individual, the practice in the standing orders would be very clear on that. However, when it comes to a political party, it is quite a different matter, no matter how difficult or offensive that is.
A government member interjecting—
Whoever interjected from the right will be out. I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that it is quite a different matter; it has been ruled very strongly, when the character of the Leader of the Opposition individually has been impugned, but, when it comes to a political party, that is a different matter. I am going to keep listening to the minister. I warn him he is on thin ice.
If the Labor Party do not like the links between the CFMEU and bikies, if they do not like the links with the militant and extreme CFMEU, they should do something about it, not take $11 million to look the other way, because the fact is: this is why we need a tough cop on the beat— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Minister, speaking about Donald Trump this morning, you said—and I will try to quote accurately: 'What people say on the campaign trail is mitigated by the strong advice they get once they get into office, because if you just fly solo on every issue you will create major problems for your nation.' Minister, has this been your experience with your own handling of the backpacker tax, drought relief and the relocation of the pesticides authority to your own electorate, just to name a few?
I have to say with all earnestness: I thank the member for his question. The last time he asked me a question was 9 November last year. He is the political Santa Claus of this place—he comes to the dispatch box but once a year. But it is great to see you here and it is great to see that you still have not really been able to ask me a question exclusively about agriculture. It is very important, if you look at the current polling, to be a little bit careful about what you say about who might be the next President of the United States, noting that Mr Trump is currently ahead, and way ahead on the odds, of winning the presidential race.
I do note that the reason the member for Hunter comes to the dispatch box but once a year is that, when he does open his mouth, he creates a catastrophe. He did so the other day with his announcement of a new rate for overseas workers at the expense of Australian workers—a new rate of tax at 10½ per cent for overseas workers, for backpackers. Let us look at this. I thought the Labor Party were the party of workers. They were the party that used to stand up for workers.
Might we go to a shed at Brewarrina, where on stand No. 1 is an AWU ticketholder who is shearing sheep at $3.08 a head, and his take-home pay—their average gets to about $55,000 a year, so at that rate they will take home about $2.08. But the shearer next door to them on stand No. 2, a backpacker from Uruguay, is taking home $2.75. Who came up with this brain explosion? Of course, it was the member for Hunter, in cahoots with Senator Jacqui Lambie. Senator Jacqui Lambie is running economic policy for the Labor Party. What an incredible day! How do you stand up for Australian workers when you are giving a distinct advantage to overseas workers? Is this the same attitude you used when you stood up for the workers at Clean Event? Is this the same attitude you used when you stood up for the workers at Chiquita Mushrooms? Who are you hurting now? None other but the whole of the Australian workforce. This is the party that says they believe in Australian jobs, yet this is the party that yesterday created the mechanism for the preference of overseas workers over Australian workers. Why? Who else are they trying to get close to? They are trying to get close to One Nation and Senator Jacqui Lambie, led by the member for Hunter. What an absolute work of genius! I tell you what you should do: do not let him down the chimney once a year; just stick him back up the chimney and let's never see him again.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on the government's response to the closure of Hazelwood power station at Morwell in the Latrobe Valley. What is the government doing to maintain energy security? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for McMillan for his question, recognising his deep commitment to the job security of those in his electorate. The decision by the owners of Hazelwood to close at the end of March next year is a sad day for the workers, a sad day for their families and a sad day for the community in the Latrobe Valley. The Turnbull government stands ready to assist those workers by announcing a $43 million package, which will include jobactive assistance and training, and which will also include an infrastructure component as well as a jobs and investment package. The government will continue to work with the Australian Energy Regulator to ensure that the upward pressure on prices is not too great, as well as working with the Australian Energy Market Operator to ensure energy security and the stability of the grid is maintained. This is bearing in mind that Victoria will now go from being a net energy exporter to a net energy importer, as 22 per cent of Victoria's supply is taken out of the equation.
I am asked by the member for McMillan whether I am aware of any alternative approaches. I am aware of at least 12 different approaches from those opposite when it comes to energy policy over less than a decade. Let's go through them. The CPRS: you were for it and then you were not. That Athenian model of democracy, the citizens' assembly: you were for that, then you were not for that. Then you had that Jeffersonian quote: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Then you went ahead and betrayed the Australian people by introducing the carbon tax. Then, of course, you had a policy—a shameful policy—of giving more than a half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to Hazelwood, to keep it open, to compensate it for the carbon tax. At the same time, the then member for Batman was negotiating with the owners of Hazelwood and other coal generators to close. Now you have a policy of a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target, where you are shamelessly trading away blue-collar jobs in the regions for green votes in the city. That is your policy: selling out blue-collar jobs in the regions to win green votes in the city.
Mr Speaker, you do not have to take my word for it on how bad Labor's policy is. With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House, the real fixer was Graham Richardson. This is what he wrote in The Australian about Labor's policy:
The farce of this policy has become obvious to all … Labor has no plan on how this target would be reached.
… … …
Sadly, Labor is playing games with people’s lives. It is no good playing roulette and hoping your number comes up. The poor and pensioners particularly require certainty about lights and heat.
Only the coalition can be trusted on energy security and on energy affordability, and to get Australia to a lower emissions future. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. I again refer to his comments this morning and note that, on 2 March 2015, the then secretary of his department sent a letter to the minister which stated:
I am writing to advise you that I no longer have confidence in my capacity to resolve matters relating to integrity with you. This follows the sequence of events before and following the alterations to Hansard that were made in October 2014.
Minister, apart from the alteration to Hansard, were there any other occasions on which the former secretary raised concerns either with you directly or with your office about your approach to— (Time expired)
It is a special day when you get the quinella! Ultimately, what has happened is that the member for Hunter has obviously gone into the tactics meeting and he has talked to the Leader of the Opposition, saying, 'Please give me a question—please, please.' He has run it past the Manager of Opposition Business: 'I need a question. It's been a year. Give me a question. Come on—help me out.' After he came up with an absolute Barry Crocker for his first one, he comes back to the dispatch box for his next one. It's great! It's great when they are bowling you mullygrubbers! He is talking about an event that is—I do not know—perhaps a year and a half ago which is well documented. Might I say that Dr Paul Grimes himself called the Senate inquiry, which he went to himself. He presented himself before that same Senate inquiry, where all the judicious approach of the inquisitive nature of the Senate were put at their disposal to ask the hard questions so as to get to the bottom of this dastardly event. And what did they come up with? Nothing—absolutely nothing.
About a year and a half later—because that is how long it takes him to get a question—up he bowls, the member for Hunter, to ask yet another absolute cracker of a question to try to bring the government down single-handedly! Dr Grimes would probably say it is not proper that you should come up with a policy that, basically, discriminates against Australian workers, especially when the leader of your party is a former AWU union rep, a person who was supposed to be looking after Australian workers, looking after farmers and looking after people on the land. But what have Labor come up with? They have come up with a policy that encourages people to employ people from overseas above Australian workers. And you just sit there smiling. Is that how you smiled when you did that to Cleanevent? Is that how you smiled with Chiquita Mushrooms? Is that the smirk you had on your face when you were letting down those workers? Now you have let down every member of the AWU who works on a farm because you—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Gosling interjecting—
The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Solomon will leave under 94(a).
The member for Solomon then left the chamber.
I want to make clear to all members that, when they refer to a member as 'you', they are referring to the Speaker. I do not particularly take offence, but I just want to point that out. That is why it is important to refer to members by their correct titles.
I think that it is quite appropriate that the Australian people—the Australians who are watching this and not watching the US presidential election, in which I think we are about to see quite a startling result—understand that the Labor Party now stands for giving an advantage to overseas workers over Australian workers. That is a remarkable turn of events when economic policy is being devised by the senator for Tasmania, Senator Jacqui Lambie, and when you are going into a pact with the Australian Labor Party, One Nation and Senator Jacqui Lambie. That is an interesting turn of events, which I know the people who I used to shear with would be very interested in. All those ticketholders would be very interested in how the person on stand 2 is apparently taking home more per sheep than stand 1— (Time expired)
The member for Hunter, obviously seeking to table a document?
Yes. You are correct, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the letter, which I referred to in my question, from the now sacked departmental head Dr Grimes to Minister Joyce in which he calls into question the minister's integrity.
I have made clear many times before that, where a document is part of parliamentary papers or is freely publicly available, I will not even seek leave. I am very sure that is the case, in this regard.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, representing the Minister for Regional Development. What steps is the government taking to support the Hazelwood Power Station workers and the Latrobe Valley?
I thank the member for La Trobe for his interest in an issue which obviously has impacts right across Victoria. No doubt there will be some tough days ahead for the people of my community, with hundreds of direct job losses expected. It is a community I share with the member for McMillan. Latrobe Valley is a great community, as you are aware, Mr Speaker. It is a diverse community and it has a very rich and proud history of providing the power for our nation, particularly in Victoria, and in terms of underpinning the wealth of the state of Victoria.
The announcement that the Hazelwood Power Station will close at the end of March next year will create some very significant social and economic challenges for my community and for the Gippsland and Latrobe Valley region. Our thoughts are obviously with the workers, with their families, with the contractors and with the small business owners who will be impacted as well.
I want to take the opportunity on behalf of Gippsland to thank the Prime Minister for the work that he has done in relation to this issue. The moment that speculation arose that there was a likelihood that Hazelwood would close, the Prime Minister formed a five-member cabinet task force to coordinate a federal response led by the Minister for the Environment and Energy. That meant that we could announce a $43 million package on day one, the day of the announcement from ENGIE, the owners of Hazelwood. It meant that we could send a message to the workers at Hazelwood, to their families and to the broader Gippsland and Hazelwood community that the community would not be left alone, in the sense that we will be there to support them into the future.
The Minister for Regional Development joined me yesterday in Morwell to meet with Latrobe City Council representatives and community representatives. We explained the immediate additional federal government assistance that would be provided. I must say it was well received by the community. Our support will be focused on supporting and creating new jobs and also investing in infrastructure that the region needs. The package includes a $3 million labour market structural adjustment package to help the employees impacted. It includes $20 million for local infrastructure and $20 million for the Regional Jobs and Investment Package. That comes on top of investments already being made in the region, which the Turnbull-Joyce government has been making in recent times. We are seeing in the order of $210 million towards the Princes Highway duplication project—a project I acknowledge was first supported by the former Labor government. We are also seeing support with $200 million for the Defence Force expansion at the East Sale RAAF base, around $100 million in new infrastructure projects in this term of government and also in the order of $65 million in new roads funding.
I said at the outset that the Latrobe Valley has a very rich and proud history of providing for the nation and for Victorians, but the region also has a great future. We have a determined and resilient community. It is one which will obviously benefit from the investment package that I have discussed here today, but it will also benefit from its own hard work. The Turnbull-Joyce government stands ready to work with this community. It is a resilient community; it is a determined community. We want to make sure we are there to help them prosper into the future.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I want to refer to an earlier ruling I have made. As members are well aware, I have today during question time twice moved on from a question and an answer where members did not refer to other members by their proper parliamentary titles, as is required under the standing orders. As I have pointed out, I have flagged this in recent weeks in various debates, particularly in question time. I want the House to know that I have done this with the purpose of reinforcing how important it is to the level of discourse in the House. While I have taken action that is strong today, I will, of course, always consider the context in which the references are made to other members and have a practical attitude. But I do say adverse references to other members will be taken particularly seriously. It is a warning to all members to refer to other members in the House by their proper titles. Obviously, I will take a practical approach to it; members know that. But for the two members concerned, it was strong action I have taken, I say, and timing was unlucky, given the number of instances we have had of it. I just wanted to say that at the conclusion of question time.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the member for Sydney claim to have been misrepresented?
I do, sadly, Mr Speaker. In question time today, the Leader of the House, as Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, said when I was the Minister for Health I was responsible for the national housing affordability scheme, the NHAS, and that the largest accessor of it was international student accommodation. It will not surprise the House to note that as Minister for Health I was not responsible for housing programs, that there is no such thing as the national housing affordability scheme or NHAS—I assume he was talking about NRAS—and that he was absolutely wrong to say that the largest accessor of NRAS was international students. The largest accessors were seniors, people with a disability, sole parents, children and Indigenous Australians. The real shame of this is that this government's only housing policy is: 'Get rich parents.'
The member for Sydney cannot debate the point of order. She will resume her seat.
(): I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2016-17 entitled Audit report No. 24 National Disability Insurance Scheme—Management of the transition of the disability services market: Department of Social Services; National Disability Insurance Agency,and Audit report No. 25, The shared services centre: Department of Employment; Department of Education and Training.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
Documents are presented in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hunter proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government failing rural and regional communities.
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—
As the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources scurries back to his office to hide away, I can inform the House, if they did not see it, that the Deputy Prime Minister had an opinion piece in The Australian on Monday. In that opinion piece he laid bare the economic, social and political philosophies he brings to his role as Deputy Prime Minister. That is right: it was a pretty short piece! I assume he penned the piece in case his philosophies until this point had been lost in translation. What he did not do in that piece, of course, was outline any plan for the nation or indeed any plan for rural and regional Australia.
He did confirm a few things. He confirmed that he is truly a conservative—someone who supports the status quo and does not like change. This is the minister who leads a party that represents nine of the 10 poorest electorates in this country, yet he looks for no change in his thinking. He is always looking back; he is never looking forward.
He also confirmed that he loves 19th century technology. There was not a word about innovation in his 500-word piece.
We did hear a little about dams. The Deputy Prime Minister said he is going to have a dam here, a dam there and a dam everywhere—every town and community is going to have a dam. We are going to have a dam-led recovery. I can make this prediction right here and now: the Deputy Prime Minister will never build a dam in his time in this place. There have been two very significant, important water projects in recent years, both of them designed, thought of and built by the Labor Party: Chaffey Dam, which the Deputy Prime Minister often likes to claim credit for, wrongly; and of course the Midlands irrigation project in Tasmania—wholly and solely a Labor project.
He also confirmed in his speech something we already knew: he hates renewable energy. He hates renewable energy so much that he blames renewable energy for pushing over those transmission towers in South Australia. Windmills and solar panels pushed those steel transmission towers over. He also made a revelation: he does not like kitchen renovators. In that same context, he also demonstrated that he does not understand the services sector—that is 70 per cent of our output, by the way—and, therefore, certainly does not understand the Australian economy.
There was one other thing we learned from the minister in his piece: the closure of the Hazelwood power station is Labor's fault. The closure of a 45-year-old brown-coal-fired generator in Victoria is all Labor's fault. That is a revelation.
Of course, what the piece lacked was any plan whatsoever for the country. Certainly there was no plan for rural and regional Australia. There was no vision, no strategy, nothing on productivity and nothing on sustainability. Take his own portfolio. This is true of the agriculture sector on this minister's watch. Productivity has flatlined. Profitability is variable and very patchy. Those working in the grains industry and dairy industry in particular are struggling, with no help from this minister. But it gets worse—much worse. Every budget cut we have seen from this government since the 2014 budget, their first budget, has hit adversely and disproportionately those living in rural and regional Australia. Whether we are talking about Gonski and school funding or higher education, it hits the bush hardest. Medicare cuts make things much worse for people living in rural and regional Australia. In our public health system, to state the obvious, bulk-billing rates continue to fall. As to cuts to child care, the critical mass is always lacking in rural towns, so the impact is disproportionate. The piece de resistance, of course, is the national broadband network—an inferior plan rolled out slower and deserting rural and regional Australians.
The minister's crowning glory is his agriculture white paper. We waited forever to get it and it said nothing. It has disappeared without trace. I ask members: when was the last time they heard anyone, either inside or outside this place, refer to the minister's agriculture white paper? It is simply a fizzer. It is a dud. This is a minister and a government without any care for rural and regional Australia. Minister Joyce thinks it is all about sound bites. Putting on an Akubra, going out into the bush, taking some selfies with journalists—that is his plan for the bush. He is full of spin and rhetoric and has no ideas for rural and regional Australia. They are suffering as a consequence. We see inequality grow between capital cities and the bush. We see data coming in all the time that we are more likely to be sick and more likely to die younger than our city cousins, and yet this minister and his government have no plan.
More recently we have had the backpacker tax. What a debacle this has been. Let us quickly go through the history. It was the tax commissioner who originally expressed concern that backpackers were ticking the box declaring themselves residents for tax purposes. That concerned the commissioner. He took the matter to the AAT and secured a ruling. He informed the government that, from now on, unless they did something about it, he was going to start charging backpackers not zero tax but 32.5 per cent. The government could have done something immediately. They knew that backpackers were already falling away for a whole range of reasons. What a genius this government is! 'Backpackers are already falling away, so we have an idea—we'll put a tax on them and only make the matter worse.' They could have acted. They could have immediately changed the definition around backpackers and residence. They could have legislated for a zero tax rate. But instead of acting, they saw the dollar signs. The Treasury told them they could secure $540 million of revenue if they just went along with the tax commissioner. And that is exactly what they did. They put their revenue interest ahead of farmers, growers and tourism operators in this country, particularly hitting those in rural and regional Australia.
Then we had an election campaign. They thought they could get away with this. 'We'll demonise foreign workers'—which of course is what the minister was doing today—'and say this is all about getting an equal do for Australians.' But of course it did not work for them. Halfway through the election campaign, under enormous pressure, what did they do? They concocted a plan. 'We'll say we're having a review'—implying that after the election we will have no backpacker tax. But at the same time they continued to spend the $540 million. Right through that election campaign they continued to spend the money. Finally, in late September, many months later—this is the mob that talked about uncertainty for growers and tourism operators, and growers in particular—they finally came up with a plan. They said, 'We will go to 19 per cent instead. Nineteen sounds pretty good.' There was no modelling, as has been confirmed in the Senate inquiry. There was no measure of the impact on the wider economy. There was certainly no modelling of the impact on those working in the agriculture sector. Notwithstanding the fact that growers, and farmers more generally, lined up at the Senate committee to tell the senators that 19 per cent is still too high, the government are completely ignoring them.
So today they have taken a new tack: now Barnaby Joyce is the workers' friend. He is not talking about—
The member for Hunter—
Now the Deputy Prime Minister is the workers' friend. He has given up the debate about the tax. He has given up even feigning any concern for farmers and growers in this country or, indeed, those working in the tourism sector. He is now the workers' friend. And he has concocted this fiction that somehow backpackers are going to be an advantage, in terms of taxation, to local residents. That is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard. The Deputy Prime Minister should come in here, correct the record and apologise to all those in the Australian community, who he is misleading. More importantly, there are a few other people that need to get on their feet in this place. I think of the member for Mallee, the member for Dawson, the member for Flynn, the member for Page—
Mr Rick Wilson interjecting—
I am going to ignore you, just to make it worse! These are people who are lions in their electorates! They are out there spruiking their wares and talking about rural and regional Australia and what great things they are doing—again 'a dam here, a dam everywhere'. It will never happen. But, when they get down here to Canberra, they fall right into line. They have deserted their constituents. They need to get on board. If the Senate amends that bill to 10½ per cent, and it comes back to the House, the member for Hinkler, the member for Riverina and others will need to come over here and, with the Labor Party, defend their constituents. (Time expired)
We heard from the member for Hunter, 'Here a dam, there a dam, everywhere a dam-dam.' I heard that during the election campaign, too, and I heard it for six long, sorry years, when Labor was in government: 'Here a damn, there a damn, everywhere a damn-damn.' But it was a different spelling, Member for Hunter. It had an 'n' on the end of it, because people were damning the Labor government for its lack of policy, its lack of a plan, its lack of vision. And what did we hear from the member for Hunter over 10 long, sorry minutes? We heard no plan, no vision, no alternative views for regional Australia—so typical of the member for Hunter, so negative. He is obsessed with the member for New England, the Deputy Prime Minister; that is all we ever hear about. But he does not have his own plan. He does not have his own policies.
But we do have policies; we do have plans. I am glad that I am going to be followed by—and the member for Hunter acknowledged him—the member for Hinkler, a great member, a great regional Australian getting on with the job of making sure that his Queensland electorate is front and centre of everything that he does and that we do as a coalition government. He will be followed by the member for Grey, the member for Mallee and the member for O'Connor. I was in his electorate the other day. Kalgoorlie is booming, thanks to the great work that the member for O'Connor is doing and will continue to do—nothing that the member for Hunter ever espoused or came up with in his 79 days as the minister for agriculture. What a memorable 79 days they were—not!
I heard somebody earlier today describe Labor, on their regional Australia policies, as 'inner urban spivs'. I think that was you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton! It is not a bad description. It is just extraordinary that the Labor Party would come into this place and lecture the government about its so-called failing of rural and regional communities. It is extraordinary that the very people who imposed the live cattle export ban, who traded votes with the Greens in Balmain before they worried about Brewarrina, would come in here and lecture this government about decisions and delivery. Those opposite are all about the bluff. They are all about the bluff.
Mr Husic interjecting—
We hear the member for Chifley. I doubt he would even know what a farmer looks like! But he eats three days a week—
Mr Husic interjecting—
three times a day, and he relies on farmers to be able to do just that. Labor are all about the lectures. They are all about the posturing. They are the knee-jerk reactors to a television program about live cattle exports. That is all they are. There is no plan. There was no consultation when they were in government—none whatsoever.
Yet today those very people come in here and lecture us. Those opposite come into this place and they cry crocodile tears about investments in the regions. They promised the world to regional communities and, as we saw when they were in government, they delivered absolutely diddly squat—certainly when it came to investment in regional mobile black spots. I have heard the member for McEwen yelling and ranting and raving about mobile black spots, but what did his side of politics do when they had the opportunity? They did nothing—not a single mobile tower, absolutely nothing. It took my friend here the minister at the table, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, and others on this side to make sure that there was a Mobile Black Spot Program for regional Australia. It was this government that committed $100 million through round 1 of the program, which is delivering 499 new and upgraded mobile base stations across Australia. It was this government that committed a further $60 million towards round 2 of the program. That is vision. That is a plan. Make no mistake, in regional Australia this was the issue that was raised with me no matter where I went, whilst they also damned the Labor side. Country people know this is the government that has actually put money into fixing mobile black spots and other issues that are confronting regional Australia.
Another of those is the agricultural competitiveness white paper. It was a great document. It is delivering issues. It is delivering programs. It is issuing good policy for regional Australia. Speaking of agricultural competitiveness, I note that the member for Maribyrnong said this morning:
We've got a big issue when you have got people coming here on 457, 417 visas, these are visas which give people from overseas temporary work rights in Australia yet we've got auto-electricians and mechanics and carpenters who can't get work in Australia. This government should be prioritising Australian jobs. They should be prioritising helping the Hazelwood workers. They shouldn't be playing silly political games.
The member for Maribyrnong is wrong yet again—yes, wrong yet again. First of all, 417 visas are for working holiday makers. Second, Labor wants to give foreign workers on 417 visas a lower tax rate than hardworking Australians.
That's not true.
That is true, Member for McMahon. It is true. The member for Maribyrnong wants auto-electricians, mechanics and carpenters to pay higher tax than foreign workers. The member for Maribyrnong wants small businesses that employ auto-electricians, mechanics and carpenters to pay more tax, and is refusing to support the government's plan to reduce tax for those small businesses with a turnover of between $2 million and $10 million. That is what he is doing. He wants to price Australians, especially young people who want to be auto-electricians, mechanics and carpenters, out of the job market.
Our working holiday-maker reform package proposes a reduction in the tax rate from 32.5 per cent to 19 per cent. It ensures that backpackers will pay a fair amount of tax on their earnings and it is internationally competitive. Labor does not understand regional Australia. We heard from the member for Gippsland, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, today in parliament talking about the Hazelwood workers. He is surprised by the lack of interest on this issue from those opposite, and I agree with him. Labor has had three days of question time, we have had the news that hundreds of workers will lose their jobs in March next year and not one question from those opposite. Not one shadow minister has visited the Latrobe Valley—what a shame. I think they should. Not one federal Labor MP has asked a question about how the government will respond to this situation, and it is a worrying situation. I feel for the member for Gippsland.
I know how it is when, the people you represent, your constituents, are hard hit by bad government policies, like they were when those opposite were in power and we had the fiasco of the Murray-Darling Basin policy. I absolutely feel for those people and that is why this side of politics is having a cabinet committee to make sure that we do everything we can to help those Hazelwood people. It is no wonder that the blue-collar workers in the Latrobe Valley have called for those opposite to talk about their issue and to actually have some compassion and feeling for them.
Labor is playing politics. Labor is playing politics on everything it does. The stalling of the passage of legislation about the backpackers issue will mean—
Stalling? What do you mean stalling?
You are the ones who are stalling it, and it means that the backpackers will be liable to the 32.5 per cent tax rate from New Year's Day, creating uncertainty and instability for the agriculture, the horticulture, the tourism and the hospitality sectors.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon will be silent.
At least he is trying. He might get a chance as the second speaker for Labor.
Mr Husic interjecting—
He is very trying, I agree with you, member for Chifley. He is very trying and he certainly was when he was the immigration minister, and he was even more trying when he was the Treasurer. Anyway, under the coalition government's changes, a backpacker in Australia will still have more money in their pocket after tax when compared to the take-home pay rates of those working in similar backpacking arrangements in Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The government has taken action to provide certainty to employers and backpackers to ensure that the new tax rate can take effect from 1 January 2017.
All the Labor Party is interested in doing is creating chaos, dysfunction and uncertainty for regional Australians. They have no understanding—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Moreton has no understanding and no plan. The member for Hunter has no plan. We heard him; he had a 10-minute opportunity to outline Labor's bold policy vision but what have we heard? Nothing—just carping on about the member for New England. As the first Minister for Small Business who comes from the country and who is a member of the Nationals, I am focused on those who do not live in the city getting heard as well. That is why I have been going around the country—not just the capital cities but the regional areas as well—not necessarily talking but listening to the ideas, the views and the outcomes of those people who work hard and who are trying to forge a business for their families, for their communities and for their local economies. I know that the plans to reduce the company tax rate and to expand the number of businesses to which that tax rate would apply are so important to those small businesses. It is the best way to give businesses a plan—
It's a city plan!
It is a good regional plan.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Why do you hate regional small businesses so much, member for Hunter? I do not understand. Why do you not give more small businesses an opportunity by getting on board with our 10-year enterprise tax plan and passing it through this place and through the Senate? The Labor Party used to stand for something and now stands for nothing. It certainly has not and does not represent regional Australia, unfortunately. You need to get onboard with a few of our good policies and all of our great plans for the regions.
It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Riverina when we talk about regional and rural issues. Gee whiz, there was not much of an enthusiastic defence of what the government does. He was sort of begrudgingly talking about a few things and attacking us. He talked about the backpacker debacle; pity he did not talk about the massive cuts to regional and rural Australia. Maybe in his electorate—if you tell us about how the Medicare cuts have affected them or how the education cuts have impacted people there, because the fact is that the cuts in regional and rural Australia have been devastating by this government.
There are many ways to describe this dysfunctional government. We can say it is a government that has no unity, it is a government at war with itself, but for people in the country this is a government that has abandoned them. It has abandoned the people of regional and rural Australia. It has failed us on so many issues—consistently failed us. Country people know that every harsh and cruel budget measure they have taken since 2013 has hit our communities in regional Australia so much more. They are very much aware of that. In regional areas, who do we blame for that? We blame the Nationals for all the extreme, cruel cuts we have seen. As I have told this House many times before, National Party choices hurt. Their choices hurt because they are choices that they make about supporting cuts—or fighting for those cuts as well, I would imagine, very harsh ones.
Let's have a look at what they have done; let's recap some of those National Party choices that have hurt. They have abandoned families with their cuts to education, childcare and family payments. They have abandoned youth people with their cuts to training and also with their plans for $100,000 university degrees, especially hitting kids from regional and rural areas. They have abandoned seniors with their harsh cuts to Medicare and cuts to important health services. They do not invest or encourage economic growth in any regional areas. They do not address those incredibly high levels of unemployment in the regions. And let's look at their NBN. My goodness, what a debacle. That has left regional areas behind. They have consistently failed on all of those points.
The fact is the National Party have just walked away from regional and rural Australia. It starts, of course, with the Deputy Prime Minister and it continues all the way through to those National Party members in the House. A great example is the backpacker tax debacle they have created. My goodness, they have certainly sold out the regions on this.
I think the failure of this government in regional and rural areas can really be epitomised by their harsh and cruel attacks on the health services that our regional Australians rely on, particularly through their cuts to Medicare. We know there is a huge divide about health outcomes when comparing regional areas to urban ones. We all know that. The fact is that the average yearly Medicare spend per individual in rural, regional and remote areas is $536 a year compared to $910 in major cities. That is a huge divide. Another important fact to note comes from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report Australia's health 2016, and that is:
In 2009-2011, people living in Remote and Very remote areas had mortality rates 1.4 times as high as people living in Major cities. For nearly all causes of death, rates were higher for people living outside Major cities, with people in Remote and Very remote areas faring the worst.
So our health outcomes are a lot worse.
That is why the National Party cuts to health are so harsh—cuts such as: imposing a GP tax by freezing the Medicare bulk-billing rebates, increasing fees for pathology and bulk-billing and increasing costs for prescription medicines. What all these cuts mean is that people just do not go to the doctor—they just do not seek medical attention—because they simply cannot afford to. That is what they are telling me. In my electorate, we also see the government's failure to respond to massive community calls for a fully funded MRI licence for the Tweed Hospital, a vitally needed health service.
When it comes to education, Labor has a very positive plan—fully funding those Gonski reforms. That stands in contrast to the government's planned cuts of $29 billion. In my electorate of Richmond, $20 million has been cut and in the electorate of Page, $24 million. There are huge cuts right across the board. As I said, another example of this government's failure is the appalling NBN services. This government, and particularly the National Party, has consistently failed and abandoned the people of regional and rural Australia. They are just being left behind when it comes to so many matters. I will continue to raise this in the House; I will continue to condemn the National Party for these cuts because their choices do hurt. Country people also know that it is only the Labor Party that look after their interests and properly fund regional services.
( It is a great pleasure to respond to some of the comments by the member for Hunter. I would say this to the member for Hunter, who, I have to say, I get on well with. In opening the MPI, he asked the question: when was the last time anyone mentioned the agricultural white paper? I can say to the member for Hunter that it is very clear: it was in last week's edition of Queensland Country Life. In fact, you provided a quote and your quote was this:
"Insurance risk mitigation seems the obvious model," Mr Fitzgibbon said.
"This is an initiative in the government’s Agriculture White Paper which I welcome.
There it is: a glowing endorsement in Queensland Country Lifethat you support the agricultural white paper. You also mention the Deputy Prime Minister's op-ed, which was out this week. The line from the op-ed piece that stuck with me was quite simply this: it said you were about to be hit in the face by the stick called reality.
This is the reality. If you are talking about renewables, you should be talking to the people who have technical knowledge. Those people with technical knowledge know how to operate a system: power network, generators, coal fired power stations, hydro, solar—all of those things. The reality is very straightforward. I actually have a degree in electrical engineering; I majored in power systems and have trained as an electrician. I will say to the member for Hunter that we need to get away from the policy wonks, we need to get away from the arguments and we need to provide a reliable supply which can be afforded by the people who have to pay the costs. That is a stick called reality—someone has to pay the bill and at this stage it is the poorest people in our communities. We cannot continue to do that.
You talk about the age of a power station. Would you believe, they actually get maintained. Every year there is a program of maintenance, and they get upgraded. In fact the Kareeya hydro station up in Tully, I understand, was opened in 1955 and it works perfectly well. It is upgraded constantly. Here is perfectly good renewable energy that works as a peaker. It is something which I support, and there should be more of it.
When we talk about hydro, we need dams. The question I put to the member for Hunter is this: you have stated there will be no dams. Do you have knowledge of the Queensland Labor Party's position? Are they not intending to build any dams in Queensland? We have put forward over $100 million to build dam infrastructure. Dams mean jobs. They also mean increasing the value of agricultural land; they mean further production.
We spent an awful lot of time signing up free trade agreements with South Korea, Japan and China to provide opportunities and market access for our producers and our services. We have increased our tourism. In fact, tourism is an enormous contributor to the Australian economy. There is one comment I would make to the member for Richmond: simply saying something does not mean that it is true. It does not matter how many times you say it, it does not make it true. When you talk about the Nationals, you should look at the reality, and the reality is that the Nationals held every seat and every senator, and they gained one. So the people of Australia support the Nationals. They did not lose one seat; in fact they maintained the seat of Capricornia. The member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, was targeted by every union under the sun, but she held onto the seat with no problems at all.
We are doing things for regional Australia and we will continue to do so. If we talk about the backpacker tax, the reality is straightforward. Every single person who is out there and operates a farm needs labour short term—they need large pools of labour to get their crop off. They need a flexible workforce. That has been provided by backpackers. They are not workers; they are tourists. They come to see this country and they work while they are here. They should contribute to the taxation system. If we accept that, the only debate is about the value. We have put forward a proposition of 19 per cent in consultation with stakeholders. The stakeholders agree—they support 19 per cent wholeheartedly. Right now, the agricultural community needs certainty. Right now they are ringing your offices and they are saying, 'Get on with it.' I can tell you that the reality is: these people—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Hunter has had his turn.
are building our economy. They provide jobs; they pay their bills—unlike many on the other side of the House. They get on with it. The people on this side of the House understand it, because we have done it. We have been out there, we have had dirt under our fingernails. We have taken risks as well. We understand what it is like to be short on cash flow, to have filled the overdraft. To have someone turn around now, after all the months of negotiation, and say they will not support this bill is absolutely outrageous. You should be supporting our agricultural producers. For the first time in a very long time, they can be out making money. I would say to the cross bench and the opposition, and particularly to Senator Lambie: go and talk to your cherry producers, because they are going fantastically well. If they leave that crop in the field, they will not make a cent.
I remind the member for Chifley that if he shows further dissent to the Chair's rulings he will be watching this from his room. I call the member for Paterson.
Well might this government talk about the reality stick; it has certainly taken the reality stick to regional and rural communities across our country. It is failing regional and rural communities left, right and centre because people in rural and regional communities experience disadvantages that city people do not. These disadvantages are many, but they are primarily in the areas of health, communications—and isn't that a sorry tale!—and access to the ever-shrinking government services.
These disadvantages are not just anecdotal; they are evidenced by fact. The Australian Bureau of Statistics General social surveyfor 2014 found:
An important issue for people who live in outer regional and remote Australia is access to services …
The main services people had difficulty accessing were doctors—surprise, surprise!—dentists, telecommunications, and government services such as Centrelink. Of those people in outer regional and remote Australia who had difficulty accessing services, nearly half said the main reason was that they were waiting too long for an appointment, or that that appointment was just not available in the time required. But just over a third said they experienced difficulty because there were no services or inadequate services in their area. No services? That is pretty common, actually.
This finding is hardly surprising. The Rural Doctors Association of Australia described the latest medical workforce data—and we are talking about fact here; we are not just pulling anecdotal evidence out of the air, which the government randomly and regularly does—which shows that the number of doctors in rural and remote areas is actually declining, as 'a real alarm bell for governments'. That is what the Rural Doctors Association is telling us. The Rural Doctors Association says that even the smallest reduction in GP numbers has a significant impact in these communities, where there is a higher prevalence of chronic disease, higher mortality rates and, sadly, a higher incidence of suicide.
All the while we are making it harder for doctors to service people. I have been contacted by so many doctors in my electorate saying that it is incredibly difficult. They have increasing costs to run their practices, and yet this government seeks to do nothing. Every harsh and misguided budget since 2014 has hit rural and regional communities disproportionately more. Access to government services is harder than it ever has been, and you do not have to go to remote areas to know that. I am a brand new member in my electorate of Paterson, and—I have to tell you—we are inundated. People are on the phone, walking through the door. We have a Centrelink office just next door. People cannot get satisfaction and they cannot get through on the phone. They are not even having their calls answered, and trying to get their problems solved is near impossible.
Let's talk about technology. The General social survey found that people in outer regional and remote Australia are less likely than people in cities to use technology, to keep in contact with their friends and family via things that people in the city take for granted every day and use quite easily, like texting, email or Skyping. Surely, if there is anything that underlies the disadvantage experienced by regional and rural Australians compared to city dwellers, it is access to technology.
Where was your mobile phone?
In fact, there is a report specifically dedicated to that. It is called The digital divide, and I would encourage the member for Mallee to have a read of it. I have spoken on it in this place a number of times, as have my colleagues. The digital divide is a technology divide between city and country, and you should be standing up for your constituents.
The second-rate NBN that this Turnbull government has offered up is letting down the people in regional and rural areas worst of all. Despite the Turnbull government's positive rhetoric and spin—saying: 'Oh, now everything's okay with the NBN. It's all being rolled out, it's all fine.'—honestly, it is like the copper that they are buying. It looks flashy and new when it is first cut, but then after a while it soon loses its gloss, and that is what it has done—not unlike this government, actually!—very rapidly lost its gloss. The on-the-ground experience of technology for rural and regional Australians is that it is simply not up to speed. The second-rate NBN does not just cost more; it delivers less.
Labor understands that fast, accessible, affordable broadband is essential for all Australians, but most particularly, for people who live in remote and rural areas. They should not be discriminated against. The successful delivery of the NBN satellite service has the potential to transform health and education and improve the way small businesses do business. (Time expired)
I refer to the member for Paterson where she speaks about a rural doctor shortage. I can tell her I have been dealing in this issue for over 20 years; I know more about rural doctor shortages than most people combined on the other side of this House.
You can't say that!
Let me tell you, the reason we have a reduction in doctors is that we are training so many doctors in Australia and we will not tell them where to practice—and neither will your side of politics, let me tell you, but there is much more to be known about that.
I come to the specifics of this MPI today. I refer to the member for Hunter. The member for Hunter is a pretty good bloke. I accept that. But I am very surprised he has put this motion up today, particularly as the shadow minister for agriculture. Yet I am proud to be part of a government that has delivered very well on agriculture. I farmed for 35 years before I got into this place, and as with doctor shortages, my guess is I have forgotten more about farming than the people from the other side would have ever learned about it.
Let us consider for a start the free trade agreement that we have signed with Japan. In fact, the Japanese free trade agreement is a high-water mark, because it has an in-built mechanism for most-preferred-nation trading status with China, with Korea. One of my constituents recently landed the first plane-load of live cattle into China. We have rebuilt the live sheep and cattle trade. What do we get as a result of this? Record prices, a record amount of income coming back into agricultural rural communities. We have delivered the three-year tax write-off for fodder storage infrastructure and an instant tax write-off for fencing and water infrastructure.
Let me tell you about the west of my electorate. Five years ago farmers were getting rid of sheep because they could not afford the $3-plus a kilolitre for water. They do not have clay, they do not have surface dams, they do not have rivers; all they had was this very expensive state supply of water. Now, under these arrangements, they are able to put in plastic water runs, plastic dams and plastic covers on those dams. Some of my friends have done so. It is a remarkable transformation; it is a great opportunity for them. We have introduced the accelerated rate of tax write-off for assets under $20,000, and put an extra $100 million into research.
And let me tell you about FMD, one of the greatest tools ever devised for the farming community. It is an absolute winner. It provides an incentive for farmers to prepare for droughts. It was introduced by a Liberal government, under John Howard. We have doubled the level of FMD available to farmers. There is a great reason to do this. Some of the farmers in my area will have an $800,000 or $1 million budget just to get the crops in the ground. Being able to put a reasonable amount of money aside will give them perhaps two years of operating expenses and the ability to work their way through a drought. And then of course we have given them the ability to offset the income from the FMD against the interest from their borrowings.
We have developed a solid platform of drought assistance around Australia. It must be remembered that those on the other side, the Labor Party, when they were in government dismantled the exceptional circumstances scheme and left nothing in its place—nothing. It is inevitable in Australia that we will have droughts, and preparations need to be made. I commend the agriculture minister for rebuilding that platform. We have introduced country-of-origin food labelling. While its aim is not to benefit farmers, there is almost certainly going to be a spin-off effect for Australian farmers in that a percentage of consumers want to patronise Australian farmers, they want to support Australian industry, and those labels are hitting the shelves now.
Some of the speakers on this motion have talked about telecommunications—the mobile phone black spot program, which has not worked as well in South Australia, I must say, as in the other states, because our state government has been dragging its heels. But it is the first federal money that has gone into mobile phone black spots since John Howard was the Prime Minister. Yet when we recently did an inquiry into agricultural innovation it was made patently clear to us by those who live in the country that higher than any other point of telecommunications is mobile phone black spots. I wish I had another five, 10 or 15 minutes, because the list of achievements of this government is long and important. (Time expired)
This government is most definitely failing regional and rural Australians and communities. What an extraordinary display by the Deputy Prime Minister and other Nationals, particularly the member for Riverina. These are members who are supposed to represent farmers, but today they threw farmers under the harvester. Instead of supporting Labor's sensible compromise on the backpacker tax—a 10.5 per cent rate that keeps us internationally competitive and ensures that our fruit growers can recruit the labour they need—the Nationals have meekly fallen into line with their Liberal masters. How proud you must feel! How proud you must feel, going back to your country electorates and saying, 'We're doing exactly what those city guys, the Libs, want us to do.'
As with so many other issues, when the going gets tough, the Nationals do what they are told by the Liberals, selling out farmers and selling out regional communities. Farmers across Australia and in my electorate are not fooled. They need Labor now—labour on farms and Labor in government. They know that a 32.5 or 19 per cent tax will not get people here. We need to be competitive internationally. The backpacker tax has been a debacle from day one—an abject failure, a betrayal of regional Australia. But it is not too late. There is still time for the Nationals to muscle up, to put farmers first, to back a lower rate of tax and ensure that we get the labour we need on our farms. I will just add that I would love to see more Australians on farms. But I do understand that locals want permanent, well-paying jobs, when farm fruit work is seasonal. I understand why it is not a viable option for farmers to rely on local labour. Its very seasonality makes it ideal for backpackers.
One of the biggest failures in regional communities has been in health care. Communities in my electorate of Lyons report long waits to access their local GP. In New Norfolk the wait for a standard appointment is three weeks. Desperate attempts by the local practice to engage new GPs are held up by reams of red tape, despite the fact that qualified people are available and keen to commence. And this government is nowhere to be seen when it comes to finding solutions. The town of Kempton is losing its GP to retirement, and there are no replacement plans. It is the same story nationwide. The Rural Doctors Association says that this is 'going to send more rural and remote patients to the healthcare equivalent of deepest, darkest Siberia'. In the Meander Valley and on the east coast, changes to Primary Health Networks guidelines threaten the futures of a local social worker, a youth worker, a mental health worker, and podiatry and physiotherapy services. Between them, these workers have for a number of years developed popular and engaging programs that have yielded enviable results. And all of it is at risk because of poorly executed and poorly communicated changes to funding guidelines.
But the failures do not end there. I could talk for hours; I have only 1½ minutes to go. Perhaps we can talk about poor access to education and training opportunities. Too many kids in my electorate leave school early and with comparatively poor outcomes. And that will not be helped by the Turnbull government's $29 billion cuts to classrooms over a decade. For kids who prefer a vocational future, a trade offers fantastic prospects. But $1 billion in cuts to apprenticeships and the axing of trade training centres makes that future harder to achieve. Campbelltown in my electorate would have benefited from the centre planned for the town, but it is not to be. Labor forced the government to abandon its $100,000 university degrees, but other damage has been done: $400 million cut from regional universities nationwide. Poor education and poor training leads irretrievably to poor employment outcomes: 27 per cent youth unemployment in some areas of my electorate. And when you show no regard for local manufacturing, when you cut training and apprenticeships, when you cut funding to infrastructure, is it any wonder that these are the results?
People on low incomes are also being failed in regional communities; 95 per cent of people in my electorate do not benefit from tax cuts for people earning over $80,000, but they do suffer from ever-higher charges for power, water and other utilities. This government is certainly failing them, on every measure. This government is failing regional Australia.
I happen to be a bit of a Monty Python fan, and there is a great Life of Brian scene that reminds me of the member for Hunter being the great John Cleese:
What have the Romans ever done for us?
The aqueduct.
Oh, yes, sanitation …
And the roads …
Irrigation … medicine … education … health.
… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order, what have the Romans done for us?
And we have the member for Hunter, standing here being the John Cleese of the Australian parliament: 'What have the Nationals ever done for us?'
The people I represent have really, really high bulldust radars, and they can spot things. When they try to remember what the Labor Party has ever done for them: 'Oh, that is right, the carbon tax surcharge on livestock exports; the shut down of the irrigation blocks'—and I was pleased that the member for Hunter actually came to the area and saw some of those irrigation blocks that are getting turned back into productivity as opposed to getting shut down—'and procrastination on road funding and rail funding.' They say, 'I remember what they did for us: they banned live exports and they shut down confidence in our export markets.' That is what they say when trying to remember what Labor has ever done for them. But they remember what the Nationals have done for them. There is a good reason, my friends, that every sitting National Party member won their seat in the last election and we gained some. It is because the people of Australia who had the opportunity—and it is a very unique opportunity, I might say—to vote National have very high bulldust radars. They remember.
This MPI gives me a great opportunity to run through just what the Nationals have done in the electorate of Mallee: $645 million in three years. Take the Murray Basin Rail Project, with $220 million of federal money to standardise the rails. This is the biggest investment federally in rail in the state of Victoria in the history of Victoria, delivered by the National Party. There was $103 million to modernise our irrigation scheme. The largest irrigation upgrade has now been completed on budget and on time—delivered by who? Oh, that is right: this government. Then there is the Western Highway and another $10 million into roads, as opposed to the Labor Party in Victoria, which does not fix a road anymore. Instead of fixing a road, they put up a sign. They put up a sign that says 'Go slower'. We fix the road; they put up a sign. We have just announced $876,000 for the Swan Hill Livestock Exchange, because we believe in the red meat industry.
Let's talk about health. There is $1 million for the oncology unit. People were driving down the road from Horsham to have chemotherapy—and had to stop and throw up on the edge of the road—but we have now delivered $1 million for the oncology unit and that is getting built. There is $2 million for the Longerenong College, to invest in young people in agriculture. There is $10 million for the Mildura runway upgrade. Yes, you can actually fly to Mildura. I know that people over here are passionate about regional Australia—and that is great. Do you know why we are passionate? It is because we have got some great food and we have got some great restaurants. I would like you to come and have a look. Everything you have said here today is probably what you read on the internet and you have not actually come to look. I would like to know how many people have actually come out to regional Australia. I am pleased that the member for Hunter came. He had a cultural experience, talking to some very particular growers in my electorate.
They didn't say nice things about you.
They wouldn't, but they are good fellows, mate. It was good that you came. How did you get there? You flew. Did you know that you can fly to the electorate of Mallee? There are 140 commercial flights each week, because the place is going ahead. There is $10 million for the Grampians Peaks Trail, so people can have a walk around. A few weeks ago we turned on 11 NBN towers around the outskirts of Mildura. There is $1.75 million for the Stawell dark matter laboratory. It is all happening, and it is because this government is delivering for regional Australia. Come out and have a look. You might actually learn something. I am pleased the member for Hunter came to the area—but I hope that you will not just be the John Cleese of the Australian parliament.
It gives me great pleasure to tell the member for Murray that I actually live in regional Queensland and have for quite some time.
Mallee.
I rise in this place to stand up for my community and to say loudly and clearly to the Turnbull government: 'Enough is enough when it comes to your mistreatment of regional, rural and remote Queensland.' As someone who was born and bred in the regional community of Townsville, I will not sit idly by whilst this government tries to rip my community apart. If I have said this once I will probably say it another 100 or 1,000 times: this government is lagging and dragging its feet on action in rural, regional and remote Queensland. Promises have been made to Herbert and they have been broken. Vital regional programs have been announced and yet Townsville has been left out.
This government promised that Townsville would have the first City Deal, which would be connected to the Townsville stadium, yet the Prime Minister has seen fit to give it to his city mates in Sydney. I know that the Prime Minister and the government were dragged kicking and screaming to the table by Labor to deliver the Townsville stadium—a commitment that was made the day before pre-poll opened—but to renege on this promise is a true slap in the face to the Townsville community. Then there is the cooperative research centre. We were promised that the CRC would be up and running in Townsville by mid 2016—but there is no CRC. Over a year ago the government announced the Northern Australia white paper and the NAIF, and still not one project has been announced. There have been massive cuts to Herbert schools, with this government cutting $48 million from Townsville schools in 2018-19.
The health inequality in regional and remote areas compared to the major cities is disgraceful. This government lacks action in addressing it, and this is clearly obvious. The average yearly Medicare spend per individual in rural and remote areas is $536 a year, compared to $910 in major cities. The health of our First Nations people is in a parlous state and the gap is growing, not closing.
Then we have the NBN rollout disaster. Labor's vision for the NBN was for all communities to have access to fast, high-speed internet—opening up education and communication for regional, rural and remote Queensland and Australia. The NBN has rolled out in Townsville, but they have missed the largest Indigenous community in all of Australia—Palm Island. The objectives and purpose of the NBN have been completely ignored by this government, and their lack of action in rolling out the NBN on Palm Island and other remote Indigenous communities is sadly lacking.
Townsville is a great and wonderful place; however, we are facing some tough challenges at the moment. We have over 13 per cent unemployment—youth unemployment is at around 20 per cent—and one of the highest insolvency rates in the nation. Yet, knowing these incredibly dreadful statistics, the Turnbull government announces its Regional Jobs and Investment Package for nine other areas, and not Townsville. This shows a complete lack of understanding of regional Townsville and our needs.
I have actually written a letter to the Prime Minister; the Minister for Employment, Michaelia Cash; and Minister for Regional Development, Fiona Nash, asking for clarification as to why Townsville was not considered and to ask them to please reconsider Townsville for this vital investment. As reported in the Townsville Bulletin, the Townsville community is basically being told by this government: 'Be happy with what you've got and cut your whingeing.' This government is failing to act and support the Townsville community. We are disheartened and frustrated with this government. I will work every hour of every day to ensure this government delivers on its commitments to Townsville.
Townsville also has a large aged-care population, and the savage cuts to aged care have left many of our elderly without adequate community services, to keep them living safely in their homes, or access to aged-care facilities. This government's track record of failings is long, and it is not good enough for my community, which deserves so much more.
Townsville needs action, and we needed it yesterday. The people of Townsville are fed up with being taken for granted. And when you take rural, regional and remote Queensland for granted, you do so at your own peril.
I think the member for Hunter is getting a little bit embarrassed by the number of people on this side saying that he is a good bloke, so I will not say that, Member for Hunter, but I will say: you've got a great sense of humour and an enormous amount of chutzpah to put forward this motion that the government is failing rural and regional communities. I will come to Labor's history in rural and regional communities in a moment, particularly in my electorate of O'Connor.
But I want to tell you a story, Mr Deputy Speaker. In early June, the national accounts came out, and there was a slightly higher than expected growth figure. I think it was about 3.25 per cent—the Treasurer is nodding his head over there—and our good friends at the Fairfax Media group, looking for a way to put a negative spin on it, ran a story that said which areas were missing out on the economic growth. I thought I had better take a look at this story just to find out. So I opened up the online story. They had 150 electorates across Australia and their economic growth for the 2014-15 year. Much to my very pleasant surprise, it confirmed what I had suspected: the electorate of O'Connor was growing faster than any other electorate in the country, at 11.7 per cent. I know my Western Australian colleagues over there would welcome that number. There was only one other electorate that even came close, and that was the electorate of Durack—my good friend Melissa is the member there—and that represents about 95 per cent of regional WA. But, to be fair, probably we were bouncing back from some of the previous government's policies. I will just touch on them briefly.
On live exports: we saw in 2011 the closure of the live export trade, which did not just affect those northern cattlemen, Indigenous communities and other people who relied on that trade; it crashed the entire cattle market across Western Australia. People down on the south coast who had never sold a beast onto a boat saw their cattle prices halved. Sheep prices also halved because of the complete lack of confidence in the live export trade. So we were recovering from that particular piece of policy, and then there was the carbon tax.
The carbon tax pushed up electricity prices. So, whether you were a food processor, a miner or just simply a farmer or small-business man getting on with a business, you were whacked with an extra cost. Removing the carbon tax gave us an economic boost across the electorate. Of course, my electorate is one of the iconic mining electorates in Australia, with the town of Kalgoorlie in it. So, even though the mining tax was aimed at the iron ore industry and the big miners—
Mr Keogh interjecting—
And I see the National Party in WA have picked up your ideas, and I will be fighting that to my last breath too; do not worry about that. I will be fighting that mining tax to my last breath, because the impact of that mining tax is exactly the same as the impact of your mining tax—that is, you can go after the big ones, but what it does is crash the confidence in the rest of the industry: the small, the mid-cap miners, the explorers and the people trying to raise capital. The confidence goes out of the industry, and jobs disappear in towns like Kalgoorlie. So it is great to see that we got rid of the mining tax.
The member for Hunter asked: when did we last hear about the agricultural white paper? When I am out talking to farmers, they are talking about aspects of the white paper all the time, like the doubling of farm management deposits from $400,000 to $800,000 to allow farmers to put money aside so that they can support themselves in drought times—not go to the government, cap in hand, asking for money, but support themselves. That is a great initiative, and I congratulate the minister for agriculture on that. As to accelerated depreciation on water, fodder and infrastructure—to be able to write that off over three years—once again, that is an issue that allows farmers in my electorate to provide for themselves to set aside fodder and water for difficult times.
I am going to run out of time, but on free trade agreements I say: free trade agreements are already starting to pay dividends in my electorate. Meat processors are finding that access to markets in China, Japan and Korea is way better than it was. We are seeing record high prices for livestock in sale yards. That is a direct result of our free trade agreements.
I just want to touch very quickly on telecommunications. I have 60 mobile phone towers in O'Connor; $17 million of government investment leveraged $53 million from the Western Australian government and Telstra—60 mobile phone towers, covering 133 of the 177 mobile black spots in my electorate.
The discussion has now concluded.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 8 of 2016.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' report 8 of 2016. The committee's report examines the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations. This report considers bills introduced into the parliament from 10 to 20 October 2016 and legislative instruments received from 19 August 2016 to 13 October 2016. The report also includes the committee's consideration of eight responses to matters raised in previous reports. Twenty-one new bills are assessed as not raising human rights concerns. The committee has also concluded its examination of three bills, three regulations and two other legislative instruments.
The report includes entries which demonstrate that Commonwealth agencies are positively engaging with the human rights scrutiny process. For example, the statement of compatibility for the Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2016, which proposes to amend a number of acts to replace current provisions providing for regulatory regimes with the standard provisions of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, discusses in detail the application of the relevant provisions of that act to the specific context of each of the 15 Commonwealth acts amended by the bill. The committee welcomed the detailed human rights assessment contained in the statement of compatibility and, based on the information contained in that assessment, considered that the bill is likely to be compatible with human rights.
Another example is the response received from the Treasurer in respect of the Federal Financial Relations (National Partnership payments) Determination No. 104-8 (March 2016)—(July 2016). The Treasurer's response to the committee's request for further information regarding that instrument, which specifies the amounts to be paid to the states and territories to support the delivery of specified outputs or projects, facilitate reforms by the states or reward the states for nationally significant reforms, helpfully provides useful information in relation to the operation and impact of the National Partnership payments (NPPs).
The response demonstrates that, while it is possible that there may be fluctuations from month to month in the funding amounts distributed to states and territories under the NPPs, generally, trends show an increase in funding over time. Further, the provision of such funding would assist the progressive realisation of a number of economic, social and cultural rights. Such engagement with the human rights scrutiny process demonstrates the important role that the committee plays in ensuring a better understanding of human rights more broadly.
The report contains consideration of a number of other bills and instruments, including those that may be the subject of differing personal views. As always, each bill and instrument is assessed against our human rights obligations. This is in accordance with the committee's mandate under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, and, together with other members of the committee, I am required to ensure that this legislative mandate is fulfilled. The report therefore represents a technical assessment of these bills which does not look into the broader policy merits of legislation.
I do, however, wish to acknowledge that some of these bills relate to important matters of individual conscience and policy, including for me personally. These matters are not enlivened by human rights law analysis, due to the important function of the committee in relation to legislative scrutiny, but this is not to say that they are not deeply held beliefs by members of the committee.
I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's deliberations. With these comments, I commend the committee's report 8 of 2016 to the chamber.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill enshrines in law that the objective of the superannuation system is to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension.
This is the first time we have had such definite recourse to what the purpose of the superannuation system is.
The Financial System Inquiry, led by David Murray, recommended that objective. And, after consulting widely, the government has agreed to the objective.
The objective for superannuation will enhance stability in the superannuation system by creating a clear framework for assessing superannuation policy.
The importance of superannuation
Australia's retirement income system comprises the age pension, compulsory superannuation and other private savings, including voluntary contributions to superannuation and the family home.
Among these, superannuation is Australia's second-largest savings vehicle.
More than 80 per cent of working-age Australians have superannuation savings, and superannuation makes up around 22 per cent of all assets held by Australian households.
Since the introduction of compulsory superannuation in 1992, the superannuation system has grown, both in size and importance. Assets in superannuation are now worth more than $2 trillion.
Over time there have been various statements about the role of superannuation.
But given its solid history and remarkable growth, it is really quite extraordinary to think that, until now, no legislation has existed to clearly define the objective of superannuation. Financial System Inquiry
The Financial System Inquiry (FSI) found that while Australia's superannuation system has considerable strengths, it lacks efficiency in a number of areas. In particular, the FSI said that the lack of clarity around the ultimate objective of superannuation led to short-term ad hoc policymaking, added complexity, imposed unnecessary cost and undermined long-term confidence in the superannuation system.
The FSI therefore recommended the government seek broad agreement on the following primary objective for the superannuation system: 'to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension'.
The government agreed, as part of its response to the FSI, to enshrine the objective of the superannuation system in the law.
As the FSI noted, a legislated objective will serve as a guide to policymakers, regulators, industry and the community about superannuation's fundamental purpose.
It will promote confidence in the superannuation system—that it is being used for its core purpose of providing income in retirement and not for tax minimisation or estate planning purposes or any further such initiatives.
And it will provide a way in which competing superannuation proposals can be measured and a framework for evaluating future changes and the fairness, adequacy and sustainability of the superannuation system overall.
There has been strong support for legislating an objective of superannuation from across the sector, including the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), Industry Super Australia, the Self-Managed Superannuation Fund Association, National Seniors Australia and the Financial Services Council.
As ASFA noted:
The government's commitment to defining the objectives of superannuation and enshrining this in legislation will provide an enduring reference point to guide future decision making by all policy makers.
The government has consulted widely on the proposed objective of superannuation, releasing both a discussion paper and draft legislation.
During consultation, while stakeholders continued to support legislating an objective of superannuation, there were different views on the wording of the objective.
There was a general agreement that the objective of super is to provide for retirement income, rather than unlimited wealth accumulation or bequests. There was also broad agreement that the primary objective should be concise and supported by subsidiary objectives.
However, some stakeholders wanted the objective to go further, to include concepts like 'adequacy' or 'comfort' in retirement. While stakeholders recommended changes to the proposed objective, there was no consensus on what the revised wording should be.
After giving careful consideration to the different views put forward in consultation, the government is legislating the objective recommended by the Financial System Inquiry. Schedule 5 of this bill enshrines that the objective of superannuation is to 'provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension'.
David Murray, the head of the FSI, supports a simple objective, recently stating:
The legislated objective of the $2 trillion superannuation system should not include references to achieving "comfort" or "adequacy" because it would open the way to constant political interference.
Subsidiary objectives
A single primary objective cannot possibly encompass all aspects of the purpose and attributes of the superannuation system. The FSI recommended the government also seek agreement to a range of subsidiary objectives, which would support the primary objective of the superannuation system.
The government will prescribe in regulation five subsidiary objectives.
These are:
The subsidiary objectives, with the primary objective, provide a comprehensive framework for assessing changes to superannuation policy.
Statement of c ompatibility
To ensure the objective of superannuation is clearly considered when changes to superannuation are proposed, sections 6 and 7 of this bill introduce a requirement that a statement of compatibility must be prepared for any bill or regulation relating to superannuation. The statement must set out how the proposed legislation or regulation is consistent with the primary and subsidiary objectives of superannuation.
This will ensure that all proposed changes to superannuation are evaluated and measured against the objective of superannuation and inform public debate on any proposed changes.
As the purpose of the objective is to guide the policymaking process and public debate, the objective of superannuation will not affect the interpretation or application of superannuation legislation.
Budget 2016-17 superannuation package
The objective has been an anchor for development of the superannuation package announced in the 2016-17 budget.
The package will better target superannuation tax concessions to those who need them most. It also enhances flexibility and choice in terms of saving for retirement and the retirement income products on offer, as well as improving the integrity of the superannuation system more broadly.
Accordingly, the government's superannuation package is entirely consistent with the objective of superannuation to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension, by affording many Australians more opportunities to save for a self-sufficient retirement while alleviating fiscal pressures on government from the retirement income system.
As a sign of the government's commitment to the objective of superannuation, while not technically required, a statement of compatibility has been provided for the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Superannuation) Bill 2016.
Final remarks
I would like to reiterate that the government has taken the initiative to ensure that the Australian superannuation system continues to benefit all Australians through the delivery of this legislation.
The objective will help provide greater long-term confidence, policy stability and a means of measuring competing superannuation proposals. It already has been important for the development of the superannuation package that was announced in the 2016-17 budget.
As such, I encourage passage of the legislation so that it can be used to assess future amendments to superannuation by governments of any persuasion.
Full details about this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill implements the government's election commitment to improve the fairness, sustainability, flexibility and integrity of our superannuation system.
We want superannuation to keep working for all Australians in their retirement as we move through the 21stcentury and grapple with some key challenges, including the ageing of our population and the need to return the budget to surplus.
The legislation I introduce today will not only improve the fairness and sustainability of the superannuation system, it will also improve its flexibility and its integrity. This will make it possible for Australians to manage their superannuation and plan their retirement with confidence. This is a plan to improve and modernise our superannuation system.
The government also wants to be clear about the purpose of the superannuation system and why tax concessions are made available to encourage saving for retirement.
That is why, as part of this package of reforms, the government is enshrining in legislation the objective of superannuation, which is 'to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension'.
Enshrining that objective has been an important anchor for the development of the superannuation reforms set out in this bill. The measures will increase the ability of many Australians to improve their superannuation savings—to increase their income in retirement.
The measures also reduce the extent to which the superannuation system can be used for tax minimisation and estate planning.
But the changes recognise that in a modern economy, working patterns are changing across the population and over the course of people's lives.
That is why our reforms will allow the system to work more flexibly for Australians; it will reflect their changing work-life patterns, particularly for those whose work patterns and incomes vary over time.
The majority of the four per cent of individuals that are adversely affected by these changes are unlikely to rely on the age pension in retirement.
While some measures place limits on the amount of contributions that can be made to superannuation or amounts that will receive tax-free earnings status, at the same time these measures target the tax concessions to ensure they are fairer and more fiscally sustainable.
Let me go through the elements of this package in detail.
Transfer balance cap
A key change to ensure the sustainability of the superannuation system is the introduction of the transfer balance cap, which is contained in schedule 1 to this bill. This introduces a $1.6 million cap on the total amount of superannuation savings that can be transferred from an 'accumulation account', where earnings are concessionally taxed, to a 'retirement account', where earnings are tax free.
Let me be very clear about what superannuation tax concessions are intended to do.
Superannuation tax concessions are intended to encourage people to save and provide an income stream to support them in their retirement.
They are not intended to provide people with the opportunity for tax minimisation, estate planning or capital preservation. It is about providing a retirement income stream, drawing on both earnings and capital over time.
Because the earnings from retirement phase superannuation accounts are tax free, they are obviously a very desirable investment choice for individuals.
We understand that.
But the transfer balance cap will not only make the superannuation system more fiscally sustainable by 'means testing', effectively, access to tax-free earnings, it will also increase confidence that the policy settings are consistent with the objective of superannuation.
As our population ages, it is simply not sustainable to have ever increasing earnings generated from very high superannuation balances being completely tax free. Doing so would mean the generations of Australians who themselves are working hard every day to try and be self-funded in their own retirement would have to pay higher taxes to make up the difference.
Importantly, the cap only limits the amount that can be transferred into the tax-free environment; once there, that amount can continue to grow through investment returns.
During consultation stakeholders raised concerns that if a macroeconomic shock were to significantly reduce superannuation balances, the transfer balance cap may unreasonably limit some people's ability to replenish their retirement accounts.
The government has already announced that a significant macroeconomic shock will prompt a review of other superannuation settings, namely minimum drawdown requirements. Consistent with that, the government commits to reviewing the impact of the transfer balance cap should there be a macroeconomic shock that substantially affects retirement incomes. The review would be expected to seek advice from the Council of Financial Regulators to understand the magnitude and financial market implications of the macroeconomic shock, and actuarial advice from the Australian Government Actuary to inform what response, if any, may be required at that time.
Amounts in excess of the cap will be able to be held in an accumulation account, where the earnings will continue to be concessionally taxed, at 15 per cent.
To ensure people do not transfer excess amounts into the tax-free earnings retirement phase, the Superannuation (Excess Transfer Balance Tax) Imposition Bill 2016 will impose a tax on the earnings of retirement phase transfers that exceed the transfer balance cap.
Let me point out that the $1.6 million transfer balance cap is around twice the level at which access to the age pension ceases on account of an individual's assets—not including the family home. This illustrates that the transfer balance cap has been set at a level to support retirement income streams well above that provided by the age pension.
Over time, the transfer balance cap will index in $100,000 increments in line with the consumer price index, just like the age pension assets threshold does. It will be the same treatment for both schemes.
Less than one per cent of fund members will be affected by the transfer balance cap in 2017-18, it is estimated.
Reducing the concessional and non-concessional cap
On top of introducing the transfer balance cap, the government is also lowering the non-concessional and concessional contribution caps. These changes are necessary because the superannuation system continues to be a highly concessionally taxed environment.
As we look ahead, we want the superannuation system to give individuals strong incentives to make additional savings over the course of their working lives. At the same time, we want to make sure that these tax concessions are better targeted. This involves changes to both non-concessional and concessional contribution arrangements.
In short, non-concessional contributions might include contributions from take-home pay, inheritances, spouse contributions, proceeds from sales of residential property or shares, and contributions above the concessional limit.
Schedule 3 to this bill lowers the annual non-concessional contributions cap from $180,000 per year to $100,000 (or $300,000 every three years).
Further, individuals with a balance of $1.6 million or more will no longer be eligible to make non-concessional contributions.
As with the existing annual non-concessional contributions cap, people under 65 will still be eligible to bring forward up to three years of non-concessional contributions. Those with balances near $1.6 million will have limited access to bring forward arrangements.
Transitional arrangements will apply for those who have triggered the bring forward before 1 July 2017 to reflect the new annual caps.
Less than one per cent of fund members will be affected by the changes to the non-concessional contribution rules.
Concessional—or before-tax—contributions include compulsory superannuation guarantee contributions, voluntary salary-sacrificed contributions and voluntary personal contributions where a tax deduction is claimed.
We are changing the approach to concessional contributions in several ways: lowering the annual cap; lowering the income threshold where people pay higher tax on their contributions; improving access; and improving flexibility.
A lower annual concessional contributions cap of $25,000 will apply from 1 July 2017 to all individuals, and will index in line with wages growth in $2,500 increments.
As with all caps that form part of the government's superannuation reforms, the concessional cap continues to be set at levels well above the average and median contribution levels. For example, the median Australian worker currently receives annual concessional contributions to their superannuation of around $4,200 per year.
Only around 3.5 per cent of fund members will be affected by the lower concessional cap. Those 3.5 per cent will have average incomes of around $200,000 and average superannuation balances of around $760,000. These are people who are least likely to rely on the age pension going forward.
Reducing the d ivision 293 threshold
We are also reducing the income threshold above which high-income individuals are required to pay 30 per cent tax on their concessional superannuation contributions—commonly referred to as the division 293 threshold—to $250,000 per annum.
To be liable for a total of 30 per cent tax, a person would need to have more than $250,000 in combined income and concessional superannuation contributions in a financial year.
Only around one per cent of fund members will be affected by the lower division 293 threshold.
Over the forward estimates, we estimate that the lower concessional cap combined with the lower high-income contributions threshold improves the underlying cash balance by $2.3 billion.
These savings are being used, in part, to improve the flexibility and fairness of the system, in particular to make it easier for all Australians to take full advantage of the concessional caps that are available.
Deductions for personal superannuation contributions
We are introducing a number of important flexibility measures. First, we are abolishing the so-called '10 per cent rule'. This rule prevented anyone earning more than 10 per cent of their income from salary and wages from claiming a deduction for personal superannuation contributions.
As a result of abolishing this rule, more people will be able to claim a tax deduction for personal contributions to superannuation. Now all workers will have the flexibility to make concessional contributions up to their annual cap.
This reform will benefit up to 800,000 Australians, particularly self-employed contractors, individuals employed by small businesses and freelancers. It offers flexibility to people who are partially self-employed, partially wage and salary earners and in instances where employers do not offer salary sacrifice arrangements.
Take the example of a firefighter who works part time, or indeed full time. They might also be a contract tradesman. Under the current rules, they cannot access the superannuation concessions available to most of the population because more than 10 per cent of their income comes from their firefighting wage. They would not be able to make concessional superannuation contributions from their contract work as a tradesman.
It will also help small businesses compete on a level playing field for talent. Currently, many small businesses just do not have the capability to offer salary sacrificing to their employees. This limits their ability to attract talented staff—particularly those who are moving closer to retirement age. Under this change, those employees will be able to access the superannuation concessions to the same extent as the rest of the community without imposing red tape on the small business that they work for.
This change has been widely welcomed by key organisations like the Tax Institute, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, the Institute of Public Accountants and the Financial Services Council, who noted that 'positive measures … help women save for their retirement and extend the scope of superannuation to all Australians, including contractors'.
Catch-up concessional contributions
The second important flexibility measure we are introducing is giving Australians the flexibility to make catch-up concessional contributions when they can afford it.
There are many Australians who take time out of the workforce, voluntarily and involuntarily, have irregular income, or whose ability to save varies year to year. Most of these Australians are women, who have lower superannuation balances than those with a more regular income pattern.
Annual concessional contribution caps can limit the ability for people with interrupted work patterns or variable incomes to make savings through superannuation.
This goes to the very issue of fairness within the superannuation system.
This bill introduces changes to allow unused concessional cap space to be carried forward.
From 1 July 2018, people with superannuation balances less than $500,000 will be able to access any unused component of their concessional contributions cap on a rolling basis for a period of five years. This is a crucial step in providing assistance to those—particularly women—who have interrupted work patterns, whether it be to raise children, look after elderly parents, or seek to boost their retirement savings just before retirement.
Over 90 per cent of Australians who have balances below $500,000 will be able to make catch-up contributions if they have unutilised cap space to carry forward. We estimate that around 230,000 people will utilise this flexibility to make additional superannuation contributions in 2019-20.
This measure is available for people with less than $500,000 in superannuation savings, effectively targeting this measure towards those who most need to build up their superannuation balances. Extending the spouse superannuation tax offset
Thirdly, we are expanding the current spouse superannuation tax offset to help more couples who make contributions to their spouses' superannuation savings. We are extending it by making the offset available to those whose spouses earn up to $40,000. This is up from the current threshold of just $13,800.
It is estimated it will encourage an additional 5,000 people to make contributions to the superannuation accounts of their low-income partners, who are disproportionately women.
Taken together, the removal of the 10 per cent rule, the introduction of the catch-up contributions measure and the extension of the spouse tax offset provide more opportunities for couples to jointly decide how to balance their superannuation savings between each other.
Low- income superannuation tax offset (LISTO)
To step back, the superannuation system is designed to encourage Australians to save for their retirement.
That is why superannuation is taxed at a lower rate than income outside of superannuation.
But, for low-income earners, the 15 per cent tax on superannuation contributions means they pay more tax on their superannuation contributions than on their take-home pay.
So, we are improving the fairness of the superannuation system by also introducing the low-income superannuation tax offset—or LISTO.
The LISTO will ensure most individuals with taxable incomes of $37,000 or less do not pay more tax on their concessional superannuation contributions than on their take-home pay.
These individuals will not face adverse tax outcomes by making contributions to their superannuation.
It is estimated that the LISTO will increase the superannuation savings of around 3.1 million low-income Australians, or one in every five fund members. Almost two-thirds of these beneficiaries are women.
Replacing the low-income superannuation contribution with the low-income superannuation tax offset better reflects the true nature of this scheme—it is an tax offset, effectively, not a handout or a welfare payment.
Encouraging the development of innovative retirement income products
We are also improving choice and flexibility for Australian retirees looking to better manage the risk associated with outliving their retirement savings.
Currently, innovative income stream products that could help people to better manage the risk of outliving their retirement savings are not available because they do not qualify for tax-free earnings status. This has restricted the ability of retirement income providers to develop and bring new retirement products onto the market.
This was highlighted as an issue in the Financial System Inquiry, as well as the Retirement Income Streams Review, each of which recommended the removal of barriers to new product development.
Indeed, the Financial System Inquiry concluded that the retirement phase of Australia's superannuation system was underdeveloped and that superannuation assets were not being efficiently converted into retirement incomes.
Extending the tax exemption on earnings in the retirement phase to products like deferred lifetime annuities will also play its part in providing more flexibility and choice for Australian retirees, as well as helping them better manage consumption and risk in retirement.
Improving integrity
And we are improving integrity by making a taxation change for people who have reached preservation age but are under 65 and not retired.
Those people will still be able to access a transitional superannuation income stream ahead of their retirement but earnings on the amount supporting it will be taxed in the fund at 15 per cent.
This change will substantially reduce the incentive for people to establish transition-to-retirement accounts as a tax minimisation measure. But at the same time it will retain access to superannuation for those people who are genuinely transitioning to retirement.
Taxing earnings on these accounts at 15 per cent will provide the same tax treatment as that which applies to all other individuals who are not yet retired.
The integrity of the system will also be enhanced by the removal of the inconsistently applied and outdated antidetriment provision.
Administrative streamlining
As part of this package of reforms, the government is also streamlining some of the ATO's administrative processes.
Notably, these reforms will replace the existing release authority requirements with standardised time frames and processes. Schedule 10 to this bill will also introduce a default process for individuals who do not make an election within 60 days when dealing with all release amounts from superannuation, ensuring that the majority of individuals will be better off if they do nothing.
Commensurate treatment for defined benefit schemes
Finally, unlike some previous changes to superannuation taxation, the government has carefully analysed the impact of this package of reforms and is making changes to ensure commensurate tax impacts on members of defined benefit schemes.
Many of our superannuation tax reforms will make the system fairer and more sustainable.
These vital and important goals would be undermined if the tax treatment of defined benefit schemes and constitutionally protected funds was not similarly adjusted.
In the past, governments have baulked at the challenge of tackling defined benefit schemes when making changes.
But this government can not only identify tough issues—we can deal with them in a way that is fair and workable.
Developing this legislation has also benefited from the input of many stakeholders.
Over 300 submissions were received on superannuation in response to the taxation white paper discussion paper Re:think. Several of them suggested that the fairness of superannuation concessions could be improved.
In fact, superannuation was the most commonly raised issue in submissions to the tax white paper process.
After our 2016-17 budget announcement, we sought views from a wide range of interested parties such as retirees, consumer advocates, tax experts, industry associations, superannuation funds, administrators, academics and legal experts.
Over 150 written submissions were received on the draft legislation and over 50 organisations attended round tables and bilateral meetings to discuss the draft legislation.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the many people who have been involved in the various consultation processes on these important reforms. Let me also thank the hardworking team at the Department of the Treasury who have been steering this process for some time.
In closing, let me cite two key comments that underscore just how imperative the passage of this legislation really is.
The first comes from ASFA, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, who note that they support our revised superannuation package and urge the parliament to:
… pass the changes as soon as practical, in order to provide certainty for people saving for their retirement.
Significantly, they point out that this is:
… the responsible thing to do for the superannuation system and for Australia's long term, fiscal sustainability.
Industry Super Australia has also urged:
… all Parliamentarians to reach consensus on a super tax package that better targets tax concessions and improves the fiscal sustainability of the system.
This package of measures achieves that goal.
It is clear that it is incumbent upon the 45th Parliament to now act to pass this crucial package of reforms.
I urge those present to pass this legislation, not only to provide certainty—as critical as that is—but also to play their part in giving Australia a superannuation system that is fair, sustainable and flexible and achieves its legislative objective.
Full details about this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I thank the House for its patience. This bill imposes a tax on the notional earnings of capital moved into a retirement phase superannuation account that is in excess of the $1.6 million transfer balance cap.
The foundation of our sustainability measures in the superannuation reform package is the transfer balance cap—a $1.6 million cap on the total amount of superannuation a person can transfer into the retirement phase where earnings are tax free.
The cap will index in $100,000 increments in line with the consumer price index.
In practice, in 2017-18 the transfer balance cap will affect less than an estimated one per cent of people with superannuation.
This bill imposes the tax liability on the notional earnings of capital where an individual exceeds the $1.6 million cap. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Superannuation) Bill 2016 details the operation of the cap.
Importantly, the tax is only applied on the notional earnings of the excess capital.
It is not intended to be punitive. Instead, it is intended to neutralise any advantage an individual receives from breaching their transfer balance cap. It reflects that, if it was not for the individual's breach, the excess amount on which notional earnings are calculated would have been in the accumulation phase and taxed at 15 per cent.
The 15 per cent tax rate applies to any breach in 2017-18.
After 2017-18, the tax rate will differentiate between first breaches and second and subsequent breaches. This differentiated tax rate is intended to provide a deterrent against ongoing breaches of the transfer balance cap.
From 2018-19, any first breach will attract a 15 per cent tax on the notional earnings of the excess capital.
For any second or subsequent breaches of the cap, individuals will be required to pay tax equal to 30 per cent of the notional earnings on the excess capital.
Notional earnings will be calculated from the date of the breach to the date it is rectified.
Individuals will have objection rights if they consider that the Commissioner of Taxation has not accurately assessed their circumstances.
There will also be transitional arrangements to assist individuals who may be in breach of the transfer balance cap on commencement of the law.
Individuals with retirement phase accounts at or below $1.7 million on 30 July 2017 that rectify the breach within six months will not be subject to the tax. This allows a margin of error for individuals who attempt to bring their balance within the cap during this transitional period.
The excess transfer balance tax, imposed through this bill contributes to a system that is more equitable and sustainable.
Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016. From day one of the coalition government, we have made it an absolute priority to have strong border protection, ensuring that we decide as a government how people come to this country, and it is working extremely well. This bill will further strengthen that and ensure that the system continues to work well, not just now but well into the future. Every day, we need to continue to deliver on this promise to provide secure borders in this country. In fact, it is working so well that there has not been a single boat arrival in the last 830 days.
830 days?
If we go back to 2013, we remember that there were a few of them rocking up every day at one stage. It was unbelievable. We went into the 2013 election with the three-word slogan that those opposite used to like to talk about: stop the boats. They said it could not be done. They said it would never be done—it was just words—but here we are and there has been not one boat arrival in 830 days.
It gets worse because, when you go back to 2007, when Labor took office, there were no boats coming then either after the 11 successful years of the Howard government. How many people were in detention then, Member for Riverina? There were four, I think, in 2007.
Four adult males.
That is right. Do you know how many children, Mr Deputy Speaker, were in detention when I was elected in 2013? Almost 2,000. Labor have learnt nothing in the last few years after their abysmal record of six years in government. Clearly, our strong border protection policies have sent a message to people smugglers that life in Australia is not a commodity to be sold at a profit to the desperate and vulnerable. Illegal immigration, of course, is a worldwide problem. In 2016, we are seeing the worst of this in Europe, and I believe it was a big factor in the recent Brexit vote and in today's US election. Our border protection policies have been so successful that other countries, including in Europe and Great Britain, are looking to us, saying: 'What have you done? How did you implement policies that are working so well? We need to do the same here.'
However, as the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, the member for Dickson, said today, we cannot afford to become complacent. Now is not the time to send a message to the people smugglers and to the Australian people that the Australian government will go soft on this issue or that we are complacent on this issue.
The bill before the House today will amend the Migration Act to further strengthen Australia's migration border-protection arrangements. The purpose is to reinforce the government's longstanding policy that people who travel here illegally by boat will never be settled in Australia. Of course, we know that this policy position is longstanding. The coalition government have had this policy position since around 2000. Do you remember the Tampa in 2001 when the Howard government was in office? It is now almost 2017 and we have not changed. The Labor Party, on the other hand, are all over the place—the most wishy-washy government and opposition ever who caused a major disaster in their six years of government.
Ms Collins interjecting—
The member for Franklin was there as part of that government. She was one of the members who weakened TPVs and that weakened everything—for example, the Pacific solution, that Howard had in place. I would not be interjecting if I was her.
There are many differences between the coalition government and Labor. While the coalition acts in the best interests of the Australian people, Labor does not. They do not act in the best interests of the Australian people on this issue relating to illegal maritime arrivals. They are too interested in what everyone else thinks. That is why, from what the members opposite have said today, they do not want to support the bill. We need to look at their record over their time in government. Some 50,000 illegal maritime arrivals came on over 800 boats. As I said before, some 8,000 children came through detention. The Labor government reopened 17 detention centres and two offshore detention centres in Nauru and in PNG. We know that there were at least 1,200 deaths at sea and an $11 billion blowout in border protection policies.
Mr Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, talks about people smuggling and the need for resettlement as though he and Labor have no responsibility in the facts and figures that I have just read out and they have no responsibility for offshore processing and detention. But they have absolute responsibility. Let's not forget that in May 2008 the Rudd government announced that it would abolish the system of temporary protection—out of the blue—when previously former Prime Minister Rudd had said they would not do that and they were on a unity ticket with us. But in May 2008 they abolished the temporary protection system.
The TPV system was formally ended by amendments to the migration regulations on 9 August 2008 and those Labor members elected in 2007, including the current shadow minister, said nothing. They just supported it and let it go through, and we know what happened afterwards. Now it seems, after listening to the shadow minister today and other members opposite, they have learnt nothing in that time—absolutely nothing.
What are their excuses for not supporting this important amendment that will send the strongest of signals that our borders are secure? The Leader of the Opposition spoke the other day about genuine refugees and said that all the people coming by boat were genuine. Now, we now that that is not the case. There are two people in my electorate alone who are men from Iran. One is a young guy who is about 27 years of age who came by boat before 2013—so he would not be affected by this policy. He is currently on a TPV in the Australian community. He has just moved into a regional area. I spoke to Amid and said: 'Mate, what was the issue?' He said he was or was about to be persecuted in Iran because of his political beliefs. I said, 'Okay, what did you do from there?' He went to neighbouring countries—I think it was Egypt—and lived there for 12 months and then flew to Indonesia and lived there for another 12 or 18 months. Then, eventually, he paid around $10,000 to come to Australia by boat. I said to him, 'Were you being persecuted when you were in Indonesia and Egypt?' He said, 'No, I wasn't.' He is a nice young guy, but he said he was not being persecuted. I said, 'Why did you then illegally pay a people smuggler to come to Australia by boat?' He said, 'Look, I just wanted to come.'
And I cannot blame him. Of course people want to come to Australia because we have the greatest country in the world. I understand that. But I said to him: 'Amid, that is the illegal part mate. You cannot actually pay a people smuggler. It is against the law to pay a people smuggler to come to Australia by boat.' I do not blame him for wanting to come, but 1,200 of his fellow travellers drowned at sea because of Labor's changes. We must send a signal that this was—
You voted against Malaysia. It was an appalling decision.
You do not have to worry about it. You were not here at the time. I am not blaming you. I am blaming members elected in 2007, Mr Conroy.
The other thing Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, said is that he is worried that the citizens of the US and Canada may face a ban. I spoke on this yesterday in a 90 second statement. I said, 'Bill, you don't represent the people of the US or Canada. You don't represent those people. You actually represent Australians in your electorate.' He is opposition leader and obviously he wants to be Prime Minister, but he has to learn that he represents Australians and that he has to look after Australians. He is not here to look after the interests of US or Canadian citizens. He is totally mixed up. I know he could not help himself intervening in this current US election by making some of the disgraceful comments he had made in relation to the Republican candidate who, in a few hours time from now, may well be the next US President. I am sure his remarks will come back to bite him. He has to learn that he is here to represent the Australian people.
The bill will prevent unauthorised maritime arrivals who are at least 18 years of age and who were taken to a regional processing country after 19 July 2013 from making a valid application for an Australian visa. The amendments will also apply to transitionary persons who were at least 18 years of age and who were taken to a regional processing country after the date. The amendments will include ministerial discretion, where the minister will be able to permit a member of a class of people within the designated regional processing cohort to make a valid application for a visa if the minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so. This is important because there are sometimes cases that are so important that it is not possible to assess them under a standard piece of legislation.
When the shadow minister spoke on this all he could do was criticise the current minister. He just went to town on him as though that was important. Given that he was elected in 2007 and was responsible for much of the chaos, I just found it outrageous. The current minister has a strong record. He has a very strong record. I am sure that future ministers from whatever government could make the right decision when it comes to ministerial intervention in these matters.
The minister made some contributions on this bill when he presented it to the House. He said notwithstanding the success of Operation Sovereign Borders people smugglers will continue to take advantage of vulnerable people by trying to convince them to get on boats for Australia and to risk their lives at sea. This bill will further undercut the people smugglers' business model. It will communicate unequivocally to the 14,000 people currently waiting in Indonesia to board a people-smuggling boat that they will never settle in Australia. The bill will communicate to illegal maritime arrivals on regional processing countries that they will never settle permanently in Australia, no matter what advocates or others may tell them. That is an important point—to stop people languishing on offshore detention centres set up by Labor for so long because some advocates might say, 'Just wait it out. The government will change. They'll weaken their border protection policies and you will be allowed in.' This will send the strongest of messages that the Australian government is serious about protecting our borders and maintaining our sovereignty and the interests of Australian people.
I know for a fact that the majority of people in my electorate of Petrie want to see our borders protected. And I think those opposite and, perhaps, some of the crossbench senators would also know that, in their states and in their seats, support for this measure is important. In stark contrast to Labor, the federal coalition government has stopped the boats, it has closed 17 detention centres, it has moved thousands of children out of detention and it has been able, as a result, to increase our refugee intake, including recently for 12,000 additional Syrians. People are absolutely in fear of their life because of ISIL at the moment in Syria and Iraq—ISIL is slaughtering these people on a daily basis. Why? Because they are Christians or something. Unbelievable! Now, our refugee intake will enable them in instead of IMAs. This is a very important bill to make sure that the message is sent clearly.
I thank the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for his work on this bill. The coalition will get on with the job. I commend the bill to the House.
It is fitting that we are debating the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016 on the day that it looks very likely Donald Trump will be elected President of the United States on a campaign of bigotry and on a campaign of demonising minorities and of making—
Mr Keenan interjecting—
Well, it is a statement of fact. It is a statement of fact—to be demonising minorities as a way of putting blame on a group of people in running on a campaign of populism around closing borders. So it is very symbolic that we are debating this bill on that day because this bill is based on bigotry. This bill is based on this government and the Liberal and National parties' appalling record of politicising the refugee debate in an attempt to wring electoral advantage. That is all this is. Strip away all the rhetoric from the other side and from the minister, and all the thin veneer of policy responses, and this is a naked, cynical political attempt to wrest political advantage from the human misery of those in Manus Island and Nauru at this moment.
This government has appalling form on this. The parties that form this government broke the bipartisan compact that had existed for over 20 years between the major political parties of support for genuine refugees in this country. They broke that compact in 2001 with the Tampa crisis and the kids overboard affair. Not only did they demonise asylum seekers—who were found to be genuine refugees, might I add—but they politicised the Defence Force and they lied. Let us be frank about that: they lied.
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I appreciate there is a lot of latitude given to members in debates such as this, but, really, that is unacceptable and unparliamentary. I will ask you to call the member into order.
To the point of order: as recently as only yesterday the Speaker ruled that you can label a party or a collective group of politicians as lying. I have not named an individual that is in this place and I have no intention of doing so. My response is entirely parliamentary and relevant to this debate.
I accept the member for Shortland's comments.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It shows the sensitivity of those opposite that they do not like being reminded of their record. They lied about the children overboard affair. They lied in a petty attempt to win an election. They claimed that parents were throwing their children overboard. And they are doing it again right now. In this bill we have nothing but politics. We have an attempt by a desperate government that is struggling because of its internal divisions because they knocked off a prime minister and did not have a new agenda. They go to their old drawcard—their old well—of politicising asylum seekers to try and wring some political advantage.
That is all this bill is about. There is no policy justification for this bill.
You only have to look at comments by the conservative Prime Minister of New Zealand that go to that. John Key—no friend of Labor—has stated quite clearly that this bill makes third-party resettlement harder. This bill makes third-party resettlement harder because it entails creating two classes of citizens in the countries that will be logical resettlement places for those found to be genuine asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru. Why would the New Zealand Prime Minister, the United States President or the Canadian Prime Minister agree to the creation of two classes of citizens? The general population of New Zealand can travel here quite freely, unencumbered by restrictions, if they are coming as tourists—in fact, it is quite broad for New Zealand citizens—but there would be a second class of citizens, being people who happen to be genuine refugees and who have resettled in New Zealand. That is the policy substance of this bill, and it has been blown away by John Key with very little effort.
This bill is purely about politics from a political party that has an appalling record on that. I will not be lectured about the drowning deaths that occurred during the Rudd-Gillard government's time by a party that voted against the Malaysia solution. It is a party that voted against the Malaysia solution that would have closed down that trade and saved the lives of at least 600 of those poor, innocent souls. I will not be lectured by a party that lied about asylum seekers, that politicised the Defence Force, that voted against the Malaysia solution and that is now participating in this nasty politics. That is all this is about. Stopping people who are found to be genuine refugees and who might be resettled in Western countries from coming here as tourists in 40 years will not deter the people-smuggling trade. It will not do anything other than try to wedge the Labor Party. I am particularly proud of the Labor Party for standing up to this.
On the issue of permanent resettlement of those who arrive by boat in Australian waters, there is a unity ticket. Both sides are in firm agreement that those people will not be resettled in this country. That unity ticket was established in 2013, and nothing has changed. This bill does not change it. Labor's policy was confirmed at our last national conference. It was confirmed by the policy that we took to the last election. I am very confident that, if we happen to win the next election, it will continue to be the practice. That unity ticket is very important to making sure that we have a generous and open migration system in this country and a very strong humanitarian intake, but it is founded on the principle that unauthorised boat arrivals will not be resettled in this country.
This bill does not change that. All this bill does is make third-party resettlement harder. All it does is try to make two classes of citizens overseas. Why? It is because this government is desperate. This government is desperate to distract from its sordid political agenda—a political agenda that has no political support—based on $48 billion worth of tax cuts to companies while it is cutting the pensions of hundreds of thousands of Australians. This is why it is trying to do this. This is from a Prime Minister who used to like to don a leather jacket, go on Q&A and pretend to be the darling of the doctors' wives. He was the small 'l' liberal and all that. Now, in a desperate attempt to hold off the member for Warringah, he has appealed to the far right of his own political party and One Nation. You have to be worried when Pauline Hanson is accusing the Prime Minister of stealing a policy of theirs. This is exactly what we are seeing on this bill. Senator Hanson is claiming credit for this bill. What next from this political party in a vain attempt to hold onto power?
The truth is this bill does not do anything to aid resettlement and get those people out of detention on Manus and Nauru. All it does is attempt to distract the Australian people. We will see speaker after speaker on the other side try to argue something else, but the truth is they cannot. I am yet to hear a substantive case from anyone over there that this bill aids third-party resettlement or that there is any intelligence that people smugglers are arguing that there is somehow any hope of resettlement in this country for people arriving by boat.
I am particularly proud that the Labor Party is opposing this. I am proud that we are saying that this does not aid border security and that this does not encourage the prevention of people smuggling. We are saying that this is a cynical and desperate attempt to wedge the progressive forces in Australian politics. It is a cynical and desperate attempt to wedge the Labor Party, and we say, 'No more.' We say that we will not be lectured about border security from the party of the kids-overboard affair. We will stand up for strong border security. We will stand up for not only protecting our borders but also, at the same time, a much broader and a much more sophisticated policy around refugees. It is a policy that included $450 million to aid the UNHCR to deal with the 60 million displaced humans around the globe, an increase in the humanitarian intake to 28,000 people and a much broader policy that really would have not only ensured that the people smugglers stayed out of business but also demonstrated that we could do that while having a broader refugee policy and really playing our part as a global citizen. There is a global refugee crisis at the moment—60 million people, as I said—around the world, and we have to play our role in that process.
This bill does not do anything to aid that. All it is is a cynical and desperate attempt to distract from the government's troubles. I proudly oppose this bill. I am proud of the Labor Party that stood up and said, 'This bill is ridiculous, desperate and cynical, and we will not stand up for it.' I am very proud to oppose this bill.
I thank the member for Shortland for coming back to the bill after we gave him wide-ranging latitude.
I am delighted to be speaking on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016 after the member for Shortland, who gave us all a very good, highly moral argument. I find it extraordinary. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Instead of him playing politics, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and pay him a compliment by saying he might just be suffering from an eternal lack of idea. He has a vague notion of compassion, which is completely devoid of any practicality, and, therefore, undermines not only the best interests of our country but also the best interests of those people who are most vulnerable. As he leaves the chamber today, I hope he is going straight back to his suite to take some notes on what really is an argument in support of a very worthy amendment to the legislation.
The starting point, to my mind, is the global context. Indeed, here we are on the very day of the US presidential election, and I suspect there might be more people glued to the TV looking at the Trump versus Clinton battle than at this chamber. Nevertheless everybody around the world is watching, because the world today is as globalised and integrated as it ever has been. We are indeed living in a world of heightened volatility and uncertainty right across the global political landscape. We know that politically, we know that economically and, sadly, we know that militarily. We have at least 10 major wars taking place in the world today. If you look at Syria alone, there are over 1,000 deaths on average every single week in Syria. These conflicts create such hurt—not just death but displacement. That is why we have 65 million displaced people around the world, 21 million of whom are refugees according to the UNHCR, and 10 million are stateless. This is the largest number probably since World War II. Australia has to be proud of its record in this regard. Australia is one of the few countries that have a very planned, successful resettlement program. The starting point for this debate, therefore, should be one of enormous pride in our achievements.
The principle has to be compassion, but there is a link here. This is where I think the Labor Party are again either playing politics or missing the point. There is a link between compassion and how we control our borders. The link is simply this: the stronger our borders, the more compassionate we can be as a country. We know in our liberal democracy that the Australian people have strong views on this matter and that the stronger our borders, the more compassionate we can be and the more humanitarian refugees we can allow into our country. That is a proven correlation. One is a prerequisite for the other. Strong borders equal more compassion and more immigration.
Historically, we know the problem with the Labor Party. Their Achilles heel has again been snapped with this amendment bill being put up. The Labor Party have no high moral ground on this issue. The Labor Party are the party that governed over 1,200 people dying at sea. There is no moral argument in favour of people dying at sea; 1,200 people who do not have a voice, because they tragically died at sea on leaky boats trying to get to Australia. On 800 boats, 50,000 people attempted to get here and 17 detention centres had to be opened up, and the Labor Party are prepared to again welcome such tragedy.
This is no longer an academic argument. This has been a proven piece of policy. The Labor Party inherited from the Howard government a successful migration program, and that tragedy I just outlined is what happened with Kevin Rudd undoing those policies. What have we seen since? It was only after the coalition's election victory in 2013 that we have seen that mess fixed up, that we have seen the detention centres closed and that we have seen the number of children in detention centres—8,000 children at the peak under Labor—down to zero. We saw that under a coalition government. Over 830 days have gone by now without a boat—
Why is this necessary then?
A silly question, but some might ask why would this be a necessary thing to do? Well, there cannot be any loopholes in this. We cannot afford weakness. If we truly believe in compassion then we need to control our borders, because the stronger they are controlled, the more we can give. That has been the mandate of the Australian people, and that is the mandate the coalition has accepted and that is why the coalition is rightly putting forward this amendment bill to ensure that there will be no loopholes.
Let me take you through a couple of the elements of the bill before I finish with some of the dangers of going down Labor's path. As we know, because the minister laid this out very well in his second reading, this bill is all about seeking to bar the designated regional processing cohort, being the illegal maritime arrivals, from ever applying for an Australian visa. This applies to those who are subject to regional processing. It applies to illegal arrivals who transferred from regional processing—so we are talking here Manus and Nauru—after 19 July 2013. This bar applies to all Australian visas. Of course, the immigration minister of the day will have the discretion, under the legislation, to lift the bar if it is considered to be in the public interest to do so.
This gets to the integrity of the system. There is a part of me that still wants to give Labor the benefit of the doubt—at least some if it. I know as a relatively new MP in this place that very few in the Labor Party have any business background. It may, therefore, be difficult for them to think from a business perspective. However, the people smugglers are running a business. As grotesque as they are, as cruel and inhumane as their business is, they are running a business. Unless we ensure that there is no loophole to this proven policy, it opens up the opportunity for them to unfairly target the most vulnerable people, who are wanting a new life. The fact that the Labor Party under Shorten promised a unity ticket on this policy, and now is against it, sends all the wrong messages to those despicable people, who are more than happy to take the money and put the most vulnerable on leaky boats.
We cannot afford that. Our conscience as a nation cannot afford that. It is not in the best interests of those people who are most vulnerable, and it is certainly not in the best interest of our country. That is why we must stand resolute. Yes, we will have the noise. We will have all the left wing of the Labor Party screaming, but they scream from the low road. You do not scream and lecture from the high moral ground when your policies governed over a period of time when over a thousand people died at sea. There is no moral platform for the Labor Party in this. There is mismanagement.
The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, got this under control. We cannot accept for a moment the possibility that more people will die. That is why we must support this amendment. Labor's form in changing its mind and breaking bipartisanship is already causing an enormous amount of problems in this 45th parliament. The Australian people are the losers as a result. Traditionally our two parties, the Labor Party and the coalition, have been united on certain issues, particularly relating to international affairs. We thought we had a unity ticket on immigration, but clearly we now do not, because Labor wants to compromise. We have already seen in the last few months the Labor Party come out with different views on the key strategic issue in our region, the South China Sea, including a shadow defence minister calling for operational boats going through between the 12 nautical miles of the disputed islands. We have seen confusion with even the opposition leader saying that in fact he is going to get the defence forces to make such decisions. This is actually a critical breach, with the Labor Party going against traditional bipartisanship on such critical issues.
They did it again with same-sex marriage. Again they are going their own way for the sake of being an opposition. There are better ways of trying to convince the Australian public than just opposition for the sake of opposition. You certainly do not do it by travelling the low moral road on what is the single biggest bungle of public policy in my lifetime. I know of no other Australian government in history who can say that their policies led to a period of time where over a thousand people died and 50,000 people risked their lives at sea. Unfortunately, the Labor Party are now looking as though, after coming together with the unity ticket, they want to go their own way. It is not worth the risk. This is why the coalition, under the immigration minister, will continue to fight.
Let me start to wrap up. This is where there is a relationship. There is a social compact that has been created over the years between Australian governments and the Australian people. It is a very simple one. The Australian people have said to successive governments, 'The more you control our borders, the stronger the control, the more willing we are as a people to accept immigrants.' Right now we have 13,750 humanitarian immigrants as our intake and, in addition to that, 12,000 people coming out of the Syrian conflict. We know that that would not be possible unless our borders were secure. This is where the basis of our argument is in fact an argument of compassion. If we, hand on heart, truly want to help the world's most needy people, then the first thing we need to do is control our borders, because the stronger our borders are the more we can do and the more we can give. Sixty-five million displaced people, 21 million refugees, 10 million stateless people—there is no shortage of demand, but the only way we can increase supply here domestically in Australia is to keep these borders secure. Therefore I commend this amendment to the House.
I thank the honourable member for Fairfax, and I also welcome him to the 45th parliament and wish him all the very best.
Unlike my colleague on the other side, I will not be supporting the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016. Primarily, I will not be supporting this legislation as I believe it fails the principal test of good legislation: it fails the test of equality, the principle of treating everybody equally. It is poor legislation because it is discriminatory, and it seems to be hugely unfair. It is poor legislation because it is almost impossible to implement. It fails the test of being righteous legislation. It is legislation based on fear and punishment. Its focus is on creating a deterrent to and a punishment for third parties without a balance of reward, rehabilitation or any long-term humanitarian approach. Secondly, my reasons for not supporting this legislation—and they are no less of a priority—are that the overwhelming sentiment in my community and in my electorate is that I do this.
In my professional judgement, I do not believe this legislation will be of long-term benefit to the people of Australia. I have listened to my electorate. I have engaged with professionals in this area, and I would particularly like to acknowledge the advisers from the Prime Minister's office for their briefing. I have read extensively on the topic, I have consulted widely and I have turned to my conscience. In particular, I need to say to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection that I am making my own decision on this matter. I do not believe that this legislation will be of long-term benefit to the people of Australia and I say to the minister: it is not because of the Greens, it is not because of Labor; it is because the people of my electorate and I think it is bad legislation.
But, in reference to the minister, I acknowledge that our governments and previous ministers have had no easy task in addressing the flow of people seeking asylum in Australia. I acknowledge that this government and previous governments have worked hard to address this issue. I acknowledge that the boats have stopped, that the children are out of custody and that many refugees are being settled in Australia. But I also acknowledge that this has been done at great cost—in money, in trust, in relationships and in reputational damage. I believe we can do better, I believe we should do better and I believe that we as a nation are better.
Over the past two weeks, the people in my electorate have inundated my office with calls and correspondence against this particular amendment, and tonight I proudly represent their views in this place. My community tell me that they, the people of Indi, believe that Australia can do better than this, and over a hundred people have directly contacted my office with their concerns about the proposed amendment. One local Indi business owner sums up the sentiment in my electorate, concisely:
In short I find this policy appalling. We are a better society than this. I cannot believe that this policy will succeed.
The people in my electorate tell me that the ends do not justify the means. We have just heard from the member for Fairfax, and all he could do was say, 'We need to be cruel, we need to be unkind, we need to be unjust, we need to punish a third party, because that is all we can do to solve this other problem.' Basically he was telling us that the ends justify the means. There would be no person in this parliament, I do not think, who could actually stand up and say they believed that. We are a country that is clever enough to have good means to justify good ends.
The people in my electorate are saying to me, 'Cathy, remember that the standard that you walk past is the standard you accept.' The standard that we would walk past in this instance is a standard of unjust behaviour. It is cruel behaviour, it punishes a third party, and I do not believe it is going to solve the problem. If we walk past it, if we accept it by passing this legislation, that becomes the standard that we as a parliament aspire to.
Another member of my constituency said: 'Cathy, Michelle Obama—she had it right. Why don't we as a nation, when they aim low, aim high? Why as a nation can't we do that? Why can't we be our best selves in this situation? Why do we seek the bottom common denominator of punishment, of hurt, of cruelty?'
Because it works.
It works?
Of course it works.
Yes, murdering people works!
We have a border protection policy that works—
Order! The member for Indi has the call.
I acknowledge the comments from the government. It is true it works, but as I say: at what cost? And do the ends justify the means?
Together with the Independent member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, I will be moving an amendment to this legislation. We are calling on the government to drop its plan to ban asylum seekers from ever coming to Australia and to instead develop a sophisticated response that deals with the situation in source countries, transit countries and countries of first asylum, because I believe we can do better. I believe we as a nation are better than this. We are an innovative nation—we are creative, we are clever—and we are a just nation. But, in this amendment bill, I see no evidence of policy that is creative, innovative or just. The major parties have a dogged focus on breaking the people-smugglers business model, and this provides very little room for public discourse about the bigger picture, about a better approach.
Clearly, it is not satisfactory to have thousands of asylum seekers remain in Indonesia, desperate for an unlikely opportunity to come to Australia. As long as they stay in Indonesia, they will continue to look to Australia as their final destination, even as this government remains resolute that they shall have no chance of coming here. How are we keeping these people connected with their home countries or, at least, with the countries of their initial sanctuary, aiming to provide the opportunity for a safe return or resettlement? The minister says this policy is based not on fear but on sending a message to people smugglers. I disagree with him. All we see from the government are increasingly harsh laws that are against people seeking protection. We are getting crueller and crueller and crueller. I ask: what is the government doing to target the people smugglers directly, instead of targeting asylum seekers by proxy?
I call on the government to outline a plan for a policy of migration to this country. How can we bring more compassion into government policy without encouraging the false hope peddled by those who prey on the vulnerable and the desperate?
I am not naive about the problem. It is real and we need to act, but I do not believe this is the best solution.
Australia has a long history of accepting refugees for resettlement, and over 800,000 refugees and displaced people have settled in Australia since 1945. Many of them have come to my community. Many of them have settled happily and become prosperous people in my electorate. I think the government is so focused on the people smugglers' marketing tactics it has forgotten to talk to Australians about maintaining this country's reputation of welcoming refugees at their time of greatest need. I call on the Prime Minister to share this government's long-term plan for migration policy—a plan that I believe he has to have been thinking about, that is innovative, that is creative, that will be effective, that will be just and that will be compassionate.
The government's migration policy has to have an impact. The minister notes how it has stopped the flow of boats to Australia' since 2013, they have managed to close 17 detention centres and they have removed children from detention. This is all admirable. The minister hopes these new laws will mean the government can cut deals to empty the offshore detention centres, but the question they have not answered is: what happens next? I support the government providing no room for equivocation or doubt about our country's migration policy position. However, it is incumbent on the government to show leadership and take a stronger role in the region to find a resolution compatible with Australian values.
The global refugee crisis is both a humanitarian challenge and a border security problem. With an estimated 65 million displaced people worldwide, the problem is too large for Australia to tackle on its own, but equally we cannot ignore our international responsibilities. Any response that will require a genuine regional solution involving most, if not all, south-east Asian countries will include Australia and New Zealand. I know we are working in this area; we just need to do more. Any solution must involve the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Australia's response to asylum seekers needs to be consistent with all of our international treaty obligations, including the Refugee Convention, the Rome Statute, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
I believe we can do better. I believe we as a nation are better. My community believes we are better. I so want us to be better. In bringing my speech to a conclusion, I will quote from a famous international, Pope Francis. He said, 'Frightened citizens build walls on one side and exclude people on the other.' Pope Francis also said the best antidote to fear is mercy. He said:
Mercy and courage also are needed to respond to the huge wave of refugees, migrants and displaced people all over the globe.
Mercy and courage: I agree with him. Oh, to be in a parliament where mercy, courage and justice were the hallmarks, not punishment and fear.
Is the amendment seconded?
No.
I will not move it then. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
I certainly welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this bill. I think we need to cast our minds back a little to when Labor came into office in 2007. There were only four illegal maritime arrivals in detention—four, and absolutely none of them were children. The Howard government had already developed policies that had stopped the boats. That was our legacy for the Rudd and Gillard governments to inherit. It did not take long for them to tear down our successful border protection policies. Within a few years, the floodgates were well and truly open.
In December 2010, Australia reeled in shock at the sight of asylum seeker boats splintering up against the unforgiving cliffs of Christmas Island. Men, women and children were screaming for help as their bodies were pummelled by the rough seas, thrown onto rocks and pounded by debris. Navy and customs crews frantically tried to rescue them, hampered by the poor weather and the huge waves as victims slipped under the water. Local residents on the cliff tops were traumatised by a feeling of complete and utter helplessness as they watched people die in front of them—as were many of those in the Navy and customs that were trying to rescue them. They are still haunted to this day by those horrible images. This happened again and again as the result of this border chaos.
By early 2013, 50,000 irregular maritime arrivals aboard more than 800 boats had swamped our shores, convinced to make the dangerous journey by the propaganda of people smugglers and the negligent policies of Labor. Over 8,000 children were put into detention with almost 2,000 still detained when we regained office in 2013. Most tragically, there were at least 1,200 deaths at sea that have been recorded, and those are just the ones that we know of. Labor had opened 17 detention centres onshore, had reopened two offshore facilities on Nauru and Manus, and had blown out the immigration budget by $11,000 million. Our humanitarian program was consumed by unauthorised arrivals and not those legitimately waiting in refugee camps around the world. We cannot go back or even contemplate this madness.
The coalition has been diligently working to clean up this mess through Operation Sovereign Borders. Again, we have fixed the problem. First, we acted to stop the boats and stop the deaths at sea. Under the coalition government there has not been a successful boat arrival for over 800 days and there have been no deaths at sea. Then we removed all the children from detention, once again, and closed 17 onshore detention centres. RAAF Scherger, for example, in my electorate, was one of the 17. While there were a very small number of people in the Weipa community that benefited for that short period while it was open and were negatively impacted when it was shut down, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, the broader community would much rather see Scherger used for its original purpose.
We restored security in our borders and re-established public confidence in border security as well as the integrity of our immigration system. This has had a direct benefit—once again Australia has become a leading player in the global effort to assist those people who are most in need. We have been able to increase our intake of refugees—the world's third largest permanent resettlement program—by more than 35 per cent. We have also been able to take an extra 12,000 refugees from the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts. This would not have been possible without Australia's strong border management policies and confidence in our well-managed migration system.
This legislation will amend the Migration Act to prevent IMAs taken to a regional processing country from making a valid application for an Australian visa. The bill will apply to all IMAs taken to a regional processing country since 19 July 2013.This is the date, of course, that the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared:
As of today, asylum seekers who come here by boat without a visa will never be settled in Australia.
This legislation applies to people who: are currently in a regional processing country; have left a regional processing country and are in another country; are in Australia awaiting transfer back to a regional processing country; or are taken to a regional processing country in the future.
We know that there are people in the regional processing cohort who have already sought, and in some cases been granted, Australian visas. We heard in the news recently, for example, that a potential marriage scam is being investigated at Manus Island after asylum seekers made it to Australia on spouse visas, having married, or intending to marry, centre workers. If these people travel to Australia, it could encourage others to pursue Australian visas in the hope of longer-term settlement. Further to this, if people who have voluntarily returned home or settled in a third country can then travel to Australia on a tourist visa, it undermines our investment in their resettlement. It is a backdoor way of circumventing the government's position.
This legislation is critical to support the coalition's key border protection policies—temporary protection visas, offshore processing and boat turnbacks, where it is safe to do so. The bill merely reflects the government's longstanding position that IMAs who have been sent to a regional processing country will never be settled permanently in Australia. Importantly, this will communicate to IMAs in Manus and Nauru that they will never settle permanently in Australia, no matter what advocates or others may tell them. Unfortunately, while we are trying to resettle people or get them to voluntarily return home, some are refusing to do so because they think, or they have been told, that the policy might change.
The Prime Minister has said many times that, while tough, our policy will not change. This bill is a necessary confirmation, from policy to law, to ensure there is no doubt. We have seen the tragedy unfold in Europe in recent times—bodies on beaches and a refugee crisis. Now that Europe is toughening up on its border protections, there is concern that people smugglers will again look at Australia and adjust their model. They will continue to take advantage of vulnerable people by trying to convince them to get on boats for Australia and risk their lives at sea.
This bill will further undercut the people smugglers' business model. It will communicate unequivocally to the 14,000 waiting in Indonesia to board a people-smuggling boat that they will never settle in Australia. On the face of it that may seem harsh, but what is even harsher is that people smugglers exploit vulnerable people by creating an expectation of an outcome from buying it. We know the people smugglers are smart and very social-media savvy. They will jump on any perceived chink in the government's messages, ready to exploit people's desperate circumstances. Harsh messages are what is needed to take away people's incentive to buy tickets.
As a safeguard, the bill will not apply to an IMA who was under 18 at the time they were transferred to a regional processing country. There might also be a legitimate public-interest reason for someone to come here, and in those cases ministerial intervention can occur.
We are a country of migrants; that is our strength, but we have to make sure that those who come here want to contribute to our society and will be welcome. In Leichhardt, we have benefited from refugee settlement resulting from people fleeing conflict in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East. They are supported by organisations such as Centacare to settle in our region and they have made a wonderful contribution. You only need to go down to Rusty's Market on a Friday and enjoy the variety of cuisines and products on offer to see that for yourself.
The reality is that, by blocking the people smugglers, it allows us to welcome a much larger number of people out of refugee camps. We have all seen pictures of these camps—cramped, barren, under-resourced, filled with traumatised families or sole survivors, for whom hope is a luxury. History shows that people in this situation are not targeted by people smugglers because they do not have a dollar to spend to travel here, and they are very appreciative of the opportunity to come to Australia.
This is very well illustrated by the story of young Josephine Umuhoza and her brother Pascal Nshimimana. When Josephine was aged eight and Pascal six, they were separated from their father whilst fleeing war-torn Rwanda to the Congo. Their mother had already been killed a couple of years earlier when the Rwandan war broke out. Soon after being separated from their father, Josephine and Pascal were also separated. It happened when they were escaping once again from a refugee camp in the Congo, when rebels started a war against Rwandan refugees. To paint a picture of their horrific situation, photojournalist Michael Graham wrote that Rwanda at this time:
... will be forever known as the place where, in 1994, genocide consumed every hill and corner, bodies clogged the rivers, and the 'international community' turned away.
Over subsequent years, Pascal fled conflict in the Congo, Rwanda and Uganda, eventually settling in Kenya and claiming refugee status. Josephine was fortunate to arrive in Australia in 2007 as a 20-year-old Rwandan refugee with her daughter Chantal, and they became Australian citizens five years later.
This timeline is important, because 2007 was the tail end of the Howard government. At that point, Australia was accepting an unprecedented number of humanitarian refugees. Josephine was one of those who benefited as a direct result of our strict border controls. In 2010, after searching for Pascal for 14 years, Josephine finally located her brother. She could not afford a migration agent so Josephine, for whom English is her fourth language, helped her brother to apply for an offshore humanitarian visa, but this was denied on a technical matter. In June 2013 Josephine approached my office for assistance, which I was happy to provide. We helped her to lodge an application for a refugee and humanitarian visa to bring Pascal to Australia.
I would like to read a few words from a letter that Josephine sent me around that time:
I am writing to you today to express my deepest and most sincere gratitude. You and Jaki—
That is Jaki Gothard, in my office—
have done so much for my brother Pascal and I. The job is still not finished and I know it won't be easy, but I know that you won't give up. I will be willing to do whatever I need to in order to see my brother alive and safe in Australia. I will provide ways for him to contribute to the sustainability of this great country as people living here have given me.
It has been a very complex and very difficult process since then, requiring assistance from then immigration minister Scott Morrison, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the Australian High Commission in Nairobi and the International Organization for Migration, Canberra operations.
I would like however to make particular mention of Matthew Neuhaus. I met Matthew when I visited Zimbabwe and he was the Australian High Commissioner to Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. Subsequently he was posted back in Australia and is now the Assistant Secretary of Africa Branch, DFAT. After several years of frustration and false starts with Pascal's situation, I reached out to Matthew for some help. It was his support, knowledge and contacts in Kenya that enabled Pascal to finally arrive in Australia on 24 June 2016. You can only imagine how incredibly heartwarming the reuniting of this family must have been. I want to extend a very big thank you to Matthew for finding a path through this very complex journey.
Pascal now lives in Townsville with his sister Josephine, her wonderful husband David whom she married in June 2015, their daughter Chantal and their new baby Lazarus. They certainly continue to keep in touch with my office. It is people like Josephine, Chantal and Pascal that Australia must be in a position to help.
This bill reflects our longstanding position—and, as we understood it, the bipartisan position—that IMAs who have been sent to a regional processing country will never be settled permanently in Australia. By not supporting this legislation, the Leader of the Opposition has shown that his words during the election were absolutely false. If he is serious about border protection, if he is serious about keeping children out of detention, if he is serious about not wanting to see more bodies wash up on the cliffs of Christmas Island, and if he is genuinely committed to offering a humanitarian place to more people like Josephine, Chantal and Pascal, Labor must support this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
I will not be voting for this legislation. This is legislation which has no policy basis whatsoever. Neither the contributions of those opposite nor indeed the legislation itself indicate why the government believes this legislation is necessary. The previous speaker spoke about Labor's position and what we said before the election. He should have a look at what his own government said before the election. They said that they had got the policy settings right. They said that they had stopped the boats. They said they had removed all of the incentives with regard to people smugglers. Yet now we have new legislation, which was not mentioned during the election campaign, that is all about politics and not about substance or policy. They should be better than that. This country deserves better than that. But what we have here is a government without an agenda, contriving division as a means to attack the Labor Party for political reasons. It is a government that is preoccupied with conflict when it should be looking for solutions to the challenges facing this nation. It prefers conflict to outcomes. The government's justification for this bill is that the legislation will deter people smugglers. But you can be harsh against people smugglers without being weak on humanity.
What this government should be dealing with is the challenge of settling people who are now on Nauru and Manus and have been there indefinitely. Indefinite detention causes mental anguish. All of the experts say that that is the case. If we are aware that circumstances not of those people's making are causing mental anguish then we as a parliament, as people concerned with our common humanity, have a responsibility to do something about it. What the government should be doing—and should have done well before now—is identifying those people and placing them in third countries so that those who have been recognised as genuine refugees are settled in accordance with the responsibilities that we have. Those people who are not genuine refugees should, of course, return to their country of origin. But this legislation goes much further than suggesting that people will not be settled here in Australia; it says that people will be banned for life from coming to Australia, whether it be as tourists, to visit relatives or as business representatives.
Last Saturday night I had the honour of attending the Ethnic Business Awards in Melbourne. The government was represented by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Julie Bishop, the member for Curtin and Minister for Foreign Affairs. She gave quite a good speech to that event, lauding the major recipients. The recipient of the major business award was a former Iranian refugee. The recipient of the major small business award was a refugee—a boat person—who came from Vietnam. The fact is that the government, in its rhetoric, is reinforcing views in the community very deliberately that somehow anyone who seeks asylum is not legitimate, does not have a contribution to make. And the government must know that it is sending that message to the Australian community, which is perhaps why Pauline Hanson has been so supportive of this policy.
But they must know something else as well, because we on this side have been determined, in a bipartisan way, to support policies that genuinely deter people smugglers. But in question time, for answer after answer, they have been prepared to stand up here and send a message to the people smugglers that somehow there is not a bipartisan position in this parliament on deterring people smugglers—being prepared to send that message. It is consistent with a government that, when it is in trouble, reaches into the bottom drawer and brings out policies, such as this one, for which there is no mandate—policies that were never mentioned before an election that we have just been through.
They say there is a justification in terms of assisting the settlement of the people of Nauru and Manus, but we know that that is not true. How do we know that is not true? Because the conservative Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key, told people it is not true when he told the people of Australia and, importantly, of his own country, New Zealand, that he would not cop a two-tiered citizenship for New Zealand citizens and that his offer to provide settlement for people on Manus and Nauru, which he has made and repeated a number of times, would be withdrawn if it was conditional upon granting a secondary citizenship status to those refugees. Therefore, it would be even more difficult to provide a solution to the major issue the government should now be dealing with, which is the settlement of those people—something they have a responsibility to do.
The fact is that the whole of this parliament has put forward a clear message, and that consensus is being breached by those opposite. How irresponsible of them: sending a message to the people smugglers that somehow this is not a bipartisan position but at the same time wanting to send a message to the Australian people that there is political gain for the government in seeking to create a political division where none should be. They are prepared to use these people as pawns whose human rights, dignity and mental health can just be taken and given away in order to secure the game of politics, which is what their plan is here.
The fact is that there is extraordinary dysfunction within this deeply divided government, led by a Prime Minister who is constantly looking over his shoulder to ensure that he is not abandoned by the hard right-wing members of his own political party. The polls are bad. Morale is down. The critics are circling. The Prime Minister needs a political circuit-breaker. The two things that they draw on is that they usually complain about unions and try to create a division and political conflict over the issue of asylum seekers. And that is what we are seeing here: no practical reason for this change. Its only purpose is to give the government an opportunity to attack the opposition.
A government that should be concerned with economic growth, should be concerned with job creation, should be concerned with future education, should be concerned with health care and should be concerned with nation building through infrastructure has, because it does not have an agenda on any of those issues, fallen back on this issue. Similarly, the inquiry announced by the cabinet to have a parliamentary committee inquiry into the conduct of the Human Rights Commission and antidiscrimination law in this country was, again, an attempt to create division and conflict in the community, to create a return to the old culture wars by putting people against each other. They cite, of course, the investigation into the cartoonist Bill Leak, claiming that 18C denies Mr Leak his freedom of speech. The truth is that in this country we do have freedom of speech. Whilst that cartoon might not be something I would have drawn, he had the right to do so. I think the complaint should be dismissed, and I have no doubt that it will not result in any consequences against Bill Leak.
I spoke to Bill Leak today, and I accept that he is someone who is going through some real anguish as a result of the complaint being made against him. I am certainly sympathetic with the view that, whether it is Bill Leak or the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo in France or cartoonists anywhere else, people have to have their right to be provocative from time to time and to be defended on that basis—not because you agree with them, but because artistic freedom is an important part of our democracy. So I do think that it is unfortunate. There is no doubt that section 18D of the act provides protection for fair comment, which is why the investigation will go nowhere. Indeed, if there is any problem at all here it is that the Human Rights Commission should have an extended power to be able to deal expeditiously with complaints that have no chance of being upheld or having any further consequences. That would of course be a positive thing, and I understand the Human Rights Commission itself has asked for that to occur.
But here we have the government again looking to have an issue where none should be. Proper leadership of the country is about creating unity and harmony and dealing with the issues where we have common interests. As I speak in this chamber, there is a count being conducted in the United States, which is a deeply divided country. We in Australia, particularly those of us in this parliament, have a responsibility to show leadership. But, from what we have seen from the Prime Minister—someone I know very well and I have known since before he was in parliament—he is not himself. The Malcolm Turnbull I met last century, before he was in parliament, would never have given the angry, full of vitriol answers that we have seen in question time when talking about the bill that is before us today, and we would not have had any of the hyperbole and the exaggeration that we have had from this Prime Minister. I think that is quite sad. I read an important analysis in The Australian written by Peter Van Onselen on the weekend. He wrote:
The re-emergence of the culture wars is a sure sign the current PM has lost control of the political narrative, not to mention his party's right flank and the handle he would have hoped to have on the philosophical and cultural direction of the country.
When we talk about this debate, we need to start and end with this: when we talk about asylum seekers and refugees, we are talking about real people and we should not be doing anything in this parliament to cause pain to them simply for the sake of a perceived political advantage—and that is what this legislation is about.
I too will vote against the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016. I rise to speak in opposition to this bill because this is bad policy. This is not good policy; this is policy that has been designed to divide. It has been designed for political purposes only, not for an outcome for the people who are on Nauru and on Manus and the many refugees that we deal with. I also oppose this bill because this is another example of a lazy government, trying to pander to the more divisive elements of this parliament—the conservative elements—while avoiding the very real and pressing issues in relation to offshore processing. I will also vote against this bill because this goes beyond our natural human nature of humanism. As we just heard from the member for Grayndler, we are talking about human beings. These are not just figures or numbers; these are people just like you and me. They are people who have families just like ours. This is an issue which this government, for too long—even previously when they were in opposition—has been using as a political football, and that is wrong. It is just not right.
This bill seeks to amend the Migration Act to make it impossible for any person who is found to be a genuine refugee and is subsequently resettled in a third country to ever be granted a visa to enter Australia. I think of my own state of South Australia, a very multicultural state. It is a state that has people from every corner who have settled there, including refugees; migrants—migrants from your background and my background who migrated around World War II after World War II—and people who came by boats, such as the Vietnamese migrants who came as refugees. We resettled over 100,000 Vietnamese boat arrivals and refugees in the late seventies and early eighties, and we did it in a way where the issue was not used as a political football, because both parties knew it was the right thing to do. Both parties under Fraser and under Hawke understood the importance of not making this a politically volatile issue.
As I said, this bill would prevent any such person from ever getting a visa to come to this country. In South Australia, our governor, who represents Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in South Australia, came by boat to Australia and then subsequently went on to South Australia. We have many people who have gone on to do bigger and better things and are absolutely essential to this nation today. What is to stop someone being processed and going to a third country, getting citizenship, becoming a citizen of that country, and going on to become a governor of one of the US states or Canada—and then we will say no to them. This is the sort of stuff that just does not make sense.
This would mean a lifelong ban on anyone who became a citizen of another country. It could be a spouse visa that they are applying for. It could be someone who is an Australian citizen, born here, who meets someone overseas and decides to get married and bring that partner here to this country. Will we deny them that right? That is what this policy will do. It will deny them that right.
In addition, this bill gives the minister a broad discretion to make the determination to waive these provisions in the public interest for an individual a class or a person specifically through a legislative instrument. This means that it would shift exclusive control over access to Australia by former asylum seekers to the minister himself. This is harsh. It is harsh on those people that would have a legitimate reason, under the laws that we currently have, to enter Australia and gain a visa or be given a visa to come to this country. That is a scary thought, looking at the calibre and attitudes of some of the cabinet ministers in this government.
We decided unanimously to oppose this bill. We had a discussion in caucus, and we decided to do so because it is a wrong bill. It is not the right thing to do. It is wrong. And it is a lazy policy. It is misdirected, and the government has failed to make any case for it. When we look at the different reasons they are giving for wanting to bring this policy into fruition, we hear different things. One day we hear it is about sending a message to the people smugglers, but then again we hear every day that the boats have stopped. So why are we sending them a message when this has actually stopped, when the problem they are talking about continuously and blowing their trumpets about—stopping the boats—has been solved?
On another day, they say that it is to send a message to the people currently on Manus Island and Nauru who are waiting for government policy to change. They are still here. There has been no resettlement that I have seen for them anywhere else. I think that is the real issue. We should be looking at those people who are stuck on these islands without any prospects. They have been incarcerated indefinitely. And that is wrong. It is the wrong thing for human beings to lock up another human being, without a criminal offence, indefinitely. If we think about that, what are we doing in this place?
My priority would be: let's look at the resettlement of these people as quickly as possible to ensure that we do stop doing the damage that is being done to those people psychologically and mentally, as we heard the previous speaker talk about.
On another day, they say it is to send a message to people currently living in community detention and to those who are voluntarily returned to their country-of-origin because they were deemed not to be refugees. That is fine; we expect people who have been found not to be refugees to return to where they came from. But let's say there is a change in regime in that particular country, and all of a sudden they find themselves in the position where they are from a different political party, perhaps a different cultural background, and they are being persecuted and are basically people genuinely seeking refugee status. They go through the UNHCR system and go on the list. Does that mean we will deny them refugee status? On other days, they say it is basically to send a message to the people who accept a resettlement option, including those who may perhaps go to Cambodia or Papua New Guinea. This bill does not make any sense. It makes no sense whatsoever.
As I said, the bill proposes to prohibit people coming to Australia by boat from ever being able to apply for a visa of any kind. But what about—there are other examples; elite athletes, for example. Sometimes we fast-track elite athletes so they can represent Australia at international sporting events like the Olympics. What about former refugees that wish to perhaps reunite with family or visit family to see their grandchildren or brothers or sisters.
What about business owners who want to visit Australia for business purposes, because they have settled in another country and are doing quite well? They may wish to discuss the expansion of their companies into the Australian market. If you look around the world, we have many, many successful refugees who have done well in the business world. In politics—Henry Kissinger was a refugee after World War II. He ended up in the US.
This just does not make sense. This is in no way consistent with the position that was announced by Labor in 2013. If passed, this legislation will create an entire generation of second-class citizens in third-party countries. It raises a number of issues that the government has failed to address with this particular bill. For example, we have heard about how this proposed bill will affect our current arrangements with New Zealand.
Currently, New Zealand citizens are eligible to apply for a special category visa, subclass 444, which entitles them to visit, study, work and stay in Australia. So, should New Zealand take genuine refugees from Manus or Nauru and these people become, let's say, New Zealand citizens, these new New Zealanders would not have the same rights as other New Zealanders when it comes to travel to Australia. And we heard the New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, make it very clear when he said, 'We have no intention of having separate classes of New Zealand citizens.'
So any discussions that have been taking place with New Zealand —and I am unaware of any; we have not seen anything on the table—John Key will not accept for this reason. As I said, he has been quoted saying they have no intention of creating a two-tier citizen system. It has also been reported that Mr Key has ruled out an agreement where refugees granted New Zealand citizenship would be unable to travel to Australia.
He is not alone in his criticism. The UNHCR's regional representative in Canberra has raised concerns about the proposal, along with many others. Ben Saul, Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney, has said that the bill may breach Australia's international law obligations.
Again, I go to the point that the purpose of this bill is to play politics. Firstly, they thought that they might be able to wedge the opposition, which was not the case; secondly, they thought that they might divert from the real issues. What are the real issues? The real issues are health, education, jobs, our pensioners—we are not discussing any of that in this place, because we have a diversion tactic taking place. A diversion tactic is what is used in many dictatorships around the world. In Third World countries, when they cannot offer their people anything, they use diversion tactics with nationalism and a whole range of other things.
This is exactly the same tactic that is being used. Let us divert away from the things that matter to the Australian public. Let us not have them talking about the 700,000 pensioners who will lose part of their pension in the coming few months because of the changes to the assets test and to deeming rates. Let us not talk about the health cuts that are being made. Let us not talk about cuts to Gonski education funding. Let us get people excited by dividing them over a particular issue.
That has worked very well in the past. We remember 'children overboard' and how divisive that was. This is no different. It is about time that, as elected members representing the Australian parliament, we got back to the job of ensuring that we are doing the right thing, that we are not using refugees as political footballs—as they have been used in this place for the last 10 years—and that we are governing for the people of Australia, who put us here.
I also have to make a point of the enormous contribution that refugees have made to this nation. If I look at my own seat, I have over 200 nationalities—people from every corner of the world. Some have arrived by boat, others have arrived as business migrants and others arrived after World War II from Greece, Italy—from Europe. They have all made a contribution. We are one of the most egalitarian places in the world, and what the government is doing today is trying to divide us and to have different tiers of people.
It is important that we get back on track and ensure that refugees are not used as political footballs. They are human beings. They are people like you and me, who have families and who are escaping dreadful circumstances. Look at Syria. It is absolutely devastating. They have no choice but to flee and leave, and we are deciding to play politics with them. That is what is happening. It is a disgrace. I am disgusted at this policy and I am very pleased that my colleagues have said that they will oppose it and vote against it.
I am speaking in opposition to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016. This is politics and humanity at its worst. There is no reason for this legislation. It does not solve a problem. It does not offer any third settlement solution for people who are lingering on Manus Island or in Nauru. It is not based on international law at all. It is simply a desperate plea from a bumbling, desperate government trying to save itself by racing to the bottom and adopting the lowest road possible to try to wedge the Labor Party on an issue that has been a very difficult issue for this nation over many years.
I want to make it clear that Labor will never ever put people smugglers back in business. Labor is committed to a policy which combines offshore processing and regional resettlement because we do not want to see people drown at sea. The government has had three years to find a durable, workable solution and a credible third-country settlement option for refugees living in the Australian-funded offshore detention centres of Manus Island and Nauru, but they have failed to announce any concrete arrangements and they are desperate to distract from that fact.
They did attempt to negotiate an arrangement. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection negotiated an arrangement with the nation of Cambodia for three refugees from Manus Island to be transferred to Cambodia at a cost of $55 million. It works out at about $18 million per refugee. I will tell you what: for that sort of money we would have been much better off bringing them to Australia, providing them all with a home and providing them and their kids with a university education. It would have been much cheaper. It cost $18 million per refugee, and I understand that two of them took off and one of them is still there, but the government pocketed the money. It is a classic example of the desperation of the government and of the bumbling, foolish nature of this immigration minister.
It is ridiculous to suggest that a former refugee, who, in the future, may become a citizen of another nation, be it the United States or Canada or New Zealand—even though they have said that they will not accept any of these people—should be banned for the rest of their life from entering Australia under a tourist visa in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years time. Refugees have made amazing contributions to Australia. In fact, if you look at our nation's history, the place was built on migration. The success of Australia, our economic and social success, has been based on migration. There have been many great refugees who have made an outstanding contribution to our nation. People like Frank Lowy, Gustav Nossal, Hieu Van Le and Anh Do have made Australia their home and become leaders in their field. But this bill would seek to lock those people out of Australia for the rest of their lives.
I know that the government is fond of saying that ministerial discretion could apply, but I have one two-word answer to that: Peter Dutton. That is all you have to say. Anyone who thinks that Peter Dutton, the minister for immigration—
Order! I ask the member to refer to members by their correct titles.
I did—the minister for immigration. Anyone who would think that the minister for immigration is going to exercise discretion with respect to people who may make a worthwhile contribution to Australia has rocks in their head.
Examples of how this bill would prevent former refugees from visiting Australia include doctors visiting Australia to perform surgery or for a medical conference; politicians undertaking a political exchange, study tour or visiting Australian sister cities; and elite athletes competing in upcoming sporting events like the Commonwealth Games. It could even affect future Australian bids for Commonwealth Games and the Olympics, particularly given that there is now a recognised refugee Olympic team that competes in the Olympics. Further, this bill would prevent former refugees from visiting family members in Australia; those visiting the Great Barrier Reef, Uluru or other tourist spots on a tourist visa; and business owners or employees visiting Australia to discuss the expansion of companies and businesses into the Australian market. It is 'Fortress Australia'. It is going back to the dark old days of a very deep and divided Australia, a very dark and dreary place in terms of immigration policy.
Rather than playing petty politics, muddying the waters about rumoured third country deals and doing One Nation's bidding, the government should really be focused on securing credible third country resettlement options. Basically the government have dropped the ball when it comes to the treatment of people who are asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru, their processing, and finding third country resettlement options. They did this partly because they have had two incompetent immigration ministers. Also, they tried to do this to punish people and to put pressure on the crossbenchers so that they would agree to temporary protection visas and other reforms to the migration laws that were made in the last parliament. This is petty politics.
I know that Prime Minister Turnbull does not believe in this stuff. I know that he does not believe in this legislation. I certainly know that the people of Wentworth do not support what the Prime Minister and this government are doing with this bill. I know that because my electorate of Kingsford Smith borders Wentworth. A lot of people from the northern end of my electorate have written to me—in fact, most people who have written to me are from the northern end of my electorate—about this issue. They certainly do not support the government's proposed legislation. In fact, I have had many, many emails and letters from people opposing this bill, but I am yet to receive one email or letter that supports what the government is doing. This is petty politics and it is done for one reason—to try and divert attention from a bumbling, foolish, chaotic and dysfunctional government.
In terms of the details of the bill, the bill amends the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations to make any application for a visa invalid where the applicant is part of the regional processing cohort. They are people who have been designated unauthorised maritime arrivals under section 5AA(1) of the act; who, after 19 July 2013, were taken to a regional processing country at any period of time; and who are above 18 years of age on the first or only occasion after 19 July 2013 when he or she was taken to a regional processing country. The definition covers asylum seekers who were over 18 years of age when they were taken to Manus or Nauru after 19 July 2013 and are currently in a regional processing centre in Manus or Nauru; currently living in onshore detention in Australia; currently living in community detention in Australia; have voluntarily returned to their country of origin; or have accepted a resettlement option, including in Cambodia and Papua New Guinea.
The bill gives the minister a discretion to make a determination to waive these provisions in the public interest for either an individual or class of persons specified by the legislative instrument. Ministers do not have a duty to consider whether to exercise discretion in any given circumstance. Again, I point to the fact that the immigration minister is Peter Dutton, and no-one has any confidence that that minister would ever exercise discretion in favour of a former refugee, no matter what the circumstances.
The Turnbull government have been unable to articulate a consistent policy and rationale for this bill. In fact, one of their MPs was quite embarrassing today on the doors trying to explain it, trying to say that there were no holes in the policy of the current government. Why do they need this policy then? When she was asked why this policy was needed if there are no holes in the current policy and it is working, she could not answer the question and fled with her tail between her legs.
The reasons for this policy change each day and differ according to each member of the government to include, on different occasions, that it sends a message to people smugglers to stop the boats; that it sends a message to those currently on Manus and Nauru who are waiting for government policy to change; that it closes 'the back door'; that it prevents 14,000 people in Indonesia getting on boats; and that it will secure additional third country resettlement options—despite the fact that they have not named any and despite the fact that New Zealand, as a result of this legislation, has specifically ruled this out. I presume that many other nations with leaders who have any sense of international law, who have any sense of credibility in their own citizens, would never agree to a third country resettlement option based on the back of legislation such as this.
The impact of this bill is to permanently exclude any person who comes here by boat from ever entering Australia. This would include travelling to visit family, and tourism, business or study. This goes beyond the stated aim of enacted law and Labor's policy that asylum seekers who arrive by boat will not be settled in Australia. There is no credible evidence to suggest that this bill is required to secure a third country resettlement option for this regional processing cohort. In addition, there are a number of issues that the government has failed to address in statements about this bill, including how the new arrangement will interact with our current arrangements with New Zealand. New Zealand citizens are eligible to apply for a special category visa, subclass 444, which entitles them to visit, study, work and stay in Australia. New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, as I mentioned earlier, has been quoted as saying, 'We've got no intention of having separate classes of New Zealand citizens.' It has been reported that Prime Minister Key has ruled out any agreement if refugees granted New Zealand citizenship would be unable to come to Australia—and for good reason.
The Australian government has a robust compliance program in place to prevent, catch and remove people who overstay visas. There has been no suggestion that this program is not equipped to manage future risks associated with issuing short-term visas to members of this cohort.
The UNHCR's regional representative in Canberra, Thomas Albrecht, has raised concerns about the proposal. Australia is a signatory to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and part 2 of article 31 states:
The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country.
It would be directly flying in the face of an international covenant that Australia has signed up to, if this legislation is passed.
A host of academics, lawyers and people who work in this field have raised concerns with this bill under Australia's international law. It has holes all over it—more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese. It is bad legislation. As I said in my opening remarks, it has been done for one reason: to try to dig a bumbling Prime Minister and government out of the chaos and dysfunction that they have got themselves into. It is bad policy, it is bad humanity and it is bad for Australia. It should be opposed.
In making my remarks on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016, I want to talk about weakness and about toughness. These are two heavy words that have been lightly thrown by government members, including the Prime Minister and the minister for immigration, in the course of this debate.
I want to say this to government members: there is nothing tough about Minister Dutton and his administration of this portfolio. There is nothing tough about this government's approach to this policy area. It is not weak to reject the cynical politics that are embodied in this bill. It is not weak to accept, as the Labor Party does, the challenges—legal, practical and moral—of responding to a world in which 65 million people are forcibly displaced and in which forced migration is a global problem that demands a global response and leadership from countries like Australia, not resiling and shrinking from our responsibilities in the course of petty, cynical politics. Of course it is not weak to reject the cynical politics that are in this bill. It is not weak to speak up for the voiceless. It is not weak to challenge executive government when its actions deserve to be challenged. It is not weak to stand up for decency and for those in the Australian community who demand it, rightly, of their elected representatives. It is not weak to put our compassion and our concern for vulnerable human beings who have sought our help before politics, especially when the politics here are all of distraction and division.
So I am proud to join with my Labor colleagues in opposing this bad bill and the worse politics which sit with it. It is a race to the bottom, as the member for Kingsford Smith put it—an appeal to the dark angels in the Australian community. And why? The policy rationale underpinning the bill is very difficult to discern. It is impossible to discern because—let's be frank—there is none. This bill does not rest on any secure foundations other than the political expedience of this government and its desperate cynicism. The bill before us is an answer in search of a question, as the government has demonstrated.
Only today, the member for Chisholm—as the member for Kingsford Smith pointed out—demonstrated this very eloquently. Having putting herself up to talk about gaps and loopholes that people smugglers could apparently exploit, she was asked by a journalist, 'What's the gap or loophole that there is at the moment under this government?' She said, 'There are no gaps or loopholes.' She went on to say, 'The outcome under the Turnbull government speaks for itself.' She was asked, 'I'm sorry again. Why is it necessary to have this legislation? You've just said that there are no gaps or loopholes.' She could not answer. She walked away. I do not say this to poke particular fun at the member for Chisholm. It is not her fault. She could not point out gaps and loopholes because, on her terms, on the government's terms, there are none.
In his contribution, the member for Grayndler went to the discrepancy between the government's triumphal posturing about their success in this policy area before the election and their desperate struggle to find a rationale to support the prosecution of this bill in recent days. It is a sorry chronology, starting on Sunday, 30 October—a week and a half ago—where the minister and the Prime Minister have shuffled through a variety of rationales supposedly supporting, supposedly demanding, the introduction of this bill.
We should not blame the member for Chisholm for her failure to be able to articulate a justification for the bill because, when it comes to policy terms—whether it is on the government's own principles or whether it is on any objective basis—there simply is no justification. The one thing that has been demonstrated over the last seven or eight days is that this is all about cynical politics, cynical posturing. The only point of this bill is to further a political agenda of division and distraction—distraction away from the real issues Australians, including my constituents in the Scullin electorate, are concerned about. It is about fomenting division for its own sake to distract us from the fact that this is a government without an agenda, without a story to tell the Australian people and without any sense of purpose, direction or hope.
There is weakness that has been revealed in the course of this debate. There has been weakness revealed—or rather, further demonstrated—on the part of our Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth. He is a person who really has shrunk in this role. In September of last year, when he became Prime Minister, he attempted to distinguish the way in which he would conduct himself from that of his predecessor, the member for Warringah. He spoke at that time of his concern about conditions in the offshore detention network. He went on to say that this area of policy is controversial and it is a challenging one. He talked about the need for a considered approach to making changes. Well that was then and this is now. That was the old Malcolm Turnbull, the one who thought we lived in exciting times, the one who thought there was a point to him being Prime Minister. Over the last year, that has evaporated, and he has shrunk. He has shrunk as a political figure and he has shrunk as a member of this place. The considered approach to policymaking, in this area and in other areas which he promised, has disappeared. Instead, he has shown himself to be a weathervane. What is worse is that the winds that he is blown around by are those of the dark forces in Australian politics. On this issue, he is singing to the tune of Senator Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party. He is being pushed around by the conservative and reactionary elements within his party room and those conservative elements outside his party room. They have claimed the win in this area, and they are right to do so, because they are setting the agenda.
Today of all days—perhaps just about now—it is a time for all of us to care about representative democracy and care about our role as members of parliament to conduct civil debates that are about enlarging our civil society, enlarging our nation and our Commonwealth and playing a positive role in world affairs. We should think about how we do politics. We should think about the practice of politics. Because we are seeing in the United States a triumph of the most coarse, the basest, approach to politics—the race to the bottom.
Yes, the electors are wrong, aren't they? You lefties are right?
I note the contribution of the member for Kennedy. What I am talking about is the need for all of us in this place to be respectful of all citizens—something which is missing in the approach of this government to this bill, in particular, on many other occasions and also in the manner in which they conduct themselves in this place.
Why don't you give blackfellas title deeds, then?
Shouting down others, shouting down voices which are different, is possibly the point you are trying to make, member for Kennedy, but I do not think that you are doing it in the most effective way. I think all of us in this place do need to be mindful of the lessons of what has just taken place in America. There is a need to engage with all voices, but also a need to raise the tone of our political conversations, not lower it, and to include all voices in our national conversation and to recognise that many do feel that they do not have a say.
At a time in Australia where we are at record inequality since the Great Depression, we are seeing Australian society, under the stewardship of Prime Minister Turnbull and Treasurer Morrison, on a trajectory towards the United States. We are reaching levels of inequality not far off the United States when it comes to inequality. The government does not have a story to tell on jobs. We are seeing the social compact and the social wage consistently under attack. These are the conditions which mean that people are ripe for exploitation and they are ripe to hear the voices of fear. We must counter those voices with voices of hope. We must not allow those who are vulnerable in our society and also those who are seeking our help to be made victims at the altar of the failures of this government's poor leadership and its paucity of vision for Australia.
The real target of this bill is not the people smugglers, of which government members have occasionally spoken about in their limited contributions to this bill. Let us be clear about this: the real targets of this bill are the Australian Labor Party and the Australian community at large. This bill is simply an attempt to wedge the Australian Labor Party, and we say, no, we are not playing that game. We are not interested in engaging in a race to bottom. We draw a line here. We are interested in having a serious debate about this challenging and controversial policy area, in the terms the Prime Minister used a year ago. A year is a long time in politics. We are interested in the policy challenges, not playing cheap politics. We are interested in conducting a debate about these issues in a way that is respectful and honest. The honest bit is pretty important, because one of the most egregious aspects of the Prime Minister's contributions in question time this week is his desperate and demeaning attempt to link his government's policy architecture in this area with multiculturalism. What makes this particularly despicable is that he is doing this at the same time as he is licensing changes which would water down vital protections against racial hatred speech. If the Prime Minister were serious about standing up for multicultural communities, including those comprising the many waves of refugees who have made such an enormous and important contribution to Australia, he would be standing up for those critical protections and he would be joining with the Labor Party in saying, 'We do not need to licence hate speech'. We do not.
Other speakers have touched on the lack of conformity this bill has with international law, and they have done so effectively. I took the time to look through the explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I am sure that government members have done so too. When it considers the statement of compatibility with human rights, we see some really desperate reasoning, because it is completely evident that this bill does not meet our international law obligations. The member for Kingsford Smith talked about the very strongly expressed views of Professor Ben Saul. I do not think there is a single person with any expertise in this area who agrees that this is a bill that stands up with our international law obligations; it certainly does not meet our moral ones, because the proposition it presents is a complete absurdity. There is no rationale for it.
This was very effectively set out by Madeline Gleeson of the Kaldor Centre at the University of New South Wales when she was discussing the import of the bill last Monday on ABC Radio on The World Today. She said there were really two options for the bill: either it could either be a gross breach of the promises we have made under international law or it could be a move that just binds the system up in more red tape. Actually, now we have seen the bill, they have the double. They have done both. It is a gross breach of international law. When we hear the minister squirm about how he can use his discretion, we see that all it really does is impose additional red tape as well—additional regulation. It is funny, because I see all these offices—that of the member for Canning is near mine—which proudly boast of their rejection of red tape; but when it comes to the Migration Act this government cannot let a sitting week go by without a purposeless amendment—an amendment that is purposeless save in one respect: to continue their divisive approach to the politics of this issue, an issue which they should rise above, where they should show some concern for the human beings at the core of these questions.
Resettlement—it has been over three years now and we do not see any meaningful effort. The cynical way in which the government have dropped out hints that this legislation may somehow be linked to helping desperate people get to safer places is shameful. It shows their neglect of their real responsibilities of looking, as Labor has done, to work with the UNHCR and with regional partners to find safe pathways and a genuine approach to resettlement. They are not interested in that. This bill demonstrates that this government is weak. It is not a tough government. A tough government would look squarely at the moral challenges that the forced movement of people places upon us. It is forced movement, including in our region, that will be increased by climate change. A tough government would look hard at itself and come up with solutions. It would find ways forward that do not demonise people, but deal with these difficult challenges in the manner that they demand, a manner that puts people first and cynical politics out the door. (Time expired)
I am the first speaker that has stood up under an America led by Donald Trump. The last speaker started throwing vituperative comments at Donald Trump. I do not follow American politics, but I watched the first republican debate. Whilst all of them did the usual political thing—'You've told lies'—'You believe the Mexicans should go back'—'You believe the Mexicans should not go back'—and all accused each other of the usual political things, he did not make any mention of the other people. What he said—and the honourable member for Gorton at the dispatch box for the opposition would relate to this—was, 'When there is a hiccup in the world economies the Chinese pull their currency down and we give them a lecture. When I become president, we won't be giving them any lecture—we will be giving them a lesson.'
I thought, if I were in America I would be voting for this bloke. This is the tectonic plate movement. This is the end of marketism—the mad free-market system which would deliver control of the economies of the world to people like the Chinese and destroy the Europeans and the Americans. I am not apologising for anyone, because I claim to have a bit of Murri in the family tree and I proudly identify that way, whether I have or not. I have a bit of everything in the family tree, but I am very proud of some of my English forebears—it might not have been their idea to come out here, but they ended up here with a free passage. But I am proud of them for standing up and saying we have had enough of this free-market enlightenment where we will be in a world government with Europe. They said, 'Turn to the valley—we are standing up and looking after the English people.' The Americans have stood up and said, 'We are sick and tired of this business. We've sent all the jobs over to China under this rubbish; we have our people working for nothing because there are millions of people flowing across the border working for nothing. We have had enough of this.'
The American people have stood up. We Australians have to stand up. Unfortunately for you major parties, you are hooked into the other side of the equation. You are the architects of the free market system. To give you some idea of how badly out of step this country is, you great heroes of free marketism: in the world a farmer gets 41 per cent of his income from the government. If you are a farmer anywhere in the world you get 41 per cent of your income from the government—except if you are a farmer in Australia, where you only get 5.6 per cent of your income from the government. That is the wonder of the free market.
We were once a great trading nation. Our biggest export item was wool. Mr Keating started free marketism in this country. No, he did not, actually—Whitlam did. All tariffs were cut by 25 per cent. Thank you, Mr Whitlam! No textile, footwear and clothing industry. No manufacturing. 150,000 Australian workers that had voted for him lost their jobs. Then Mr Keating came in. Of course he was the great architect and founder of free marketism. He no sooner got in then he deregulated the wool industry. What a wonderful achievement! The biggest export item this country had in 1990 was wool. It was bigger than coal. He single-handedly completely destroyed the industry. Within three years we had lost two thirds of our income. Now our country has lost three quarters of its wool production. Thank you, Mr Keating—you are a genius! He proceeded to remove all tariffs. Goodbye, manufacturing industry! Mr Latham, of course, was a rabid Keating supporter. God bless my brothers in the CFMEU for getting rid of both of them—the Labor movement of Australia is well free of that pair.
Of course, the only regret of the Liberals, particularly the Costello Liberals—I would not say the Howard Liberals—is that they could not sell all of the nation's assets that Australians built. They could not sell them all. In our state it was the Labor Party, to their eternal shame, that sold the railways and corporatised—sold, if you like—the electricity industry. It was the Labor Party. And they suffered the worst defeat in the history of Queensland. A party that had had three members 12 years before, the Liberal Party, became the governing party in Queensland. But the Liberals were so stupid that they went to the next election on a policy of selling assets. There is stupid, and there is a really stupid. The Labor Party no longer holds the record for the worst defeat in Queensland history. The Liberal National Party now hold the record for the worst defeat, because they said they were going to sell the assets, the same thing the Labor Party had been thrown out for.
But, in this place here, we have never stopped any sale of Australia's assets. They are not your assets, Mr Crown; they do not belong to you. Those railways were built by the Australian people. That electricity industry was built by the Australian people. It was not built by the Crown, the government or this parliament. It belongs to the Australian people.
I return to bringing people in from overseas. When you walk through those doors of the chamber, you will see two magnificent paintings. One of them is of Charlie McDonald, the first member for Kennedy. I think Charlie gave six of his first seven speeches in this place railing and ranting against migration to Australia. Here we are, 100 years later, and the member for Kennedy is in this place ranting and railing against it. The only people in this country that have stood on their hind legs and fought against what is going on are the CFMEU, and that is why I am proud to be associated with them. They are the only group in this country that have fought against it. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party are bringing 620,000 people a year into this country. Into an economy that is generating just 200,000 jobs, they are bringing 620,000 people. All of those on a student visa can work when they get it—and section 457 visa holders, because they come here to work.
We have fought and literally died for the labour movement. Three of the 12 on the state executive of the AWU, which was just about the only union we had in Queensland in those days, were shot. The entire executive was sentenced to three years hard labour for having a strike. We eventually won the long-fought-for benefits. I say 'benefits', but you could hardly call not having to go down a mine and be blown to pieces a benefit. As I have said constantly in this place, I represent Mount Mulligan. There were 72 human beings blown to death in one hour at Mount Mulligan, and 23 blown to death at Mount Leyshon in Charters Towers, in the Kennedy electorate. Is it any wonder that Charlie McDonald, whose picture is out there, was out there ranting and raving against bringing in people? When we won these conditions, the mining companies said, 'Ha-ha, we'll see about that,' and they brought the coolies in to work the mines, undermining our pay and conditions and taking our jobs off us.
To the shame of the Labor Party in this place, it is them who started the section 457 visas. There were 50,000-odd coming in under the Liberals—I think that figure is correct—and then suddenly there were 200,000 coming in under Labor. Charlie McDonald and the great fathers of the labour movement would turn in their graves if they saw what the Labor Party had become. So Labor instituted the section 457 visa workers.
Under those visa arrangements, there are 300,000; there are 200,000 under the other visa; and there are 200,000 migrants coming into the country. So we are bringing 620,000 into an economy with only 200,000 jobs. And there are over 200,000 school leavers each year in Australia. I asked the Treasurer, 'What financial arrangements are you making for the explosion in welfare in this country as a result of your migration policies?' I expected him to say, 'Oh, they go home,' to which of course I was going to shout out, 'No, they don't.' Tell that to the Americans about the Mexicans coming across the border! They all go home, do they? Of course they do not go home.
When Tony Abbott, a week or two weeks after I asked that question, decided to do identification checks, again, to the shame of the Labor Party, they were screaming and screeching and yelling, 'You can't do that!' Well, if you cannot do that, then all 620,000 are going to be staying in this country each year—which of course we know they are.
It was no surprise that, five days after I asked that question, the Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter—a very sensible and intelligent person, the deputy leader in Western Australia—said that the welfare budget will blow out from a quarter of the entire budget to half of it over the next 10 years. But we are still bringing them in. If there is one good thing that the Liberals have done, that is stop the boats.
I heard the previous speaker get up in this place and talk about 'these poor people, these poor refugees'. A refugee is not a person that looks at a globe of the world and picks a country on the other side of the globe and says, 'I'm going to flee to there.' A refugee is a person that flees for his life across the border. There were 12 million to 15 million refugees after the Second World War; they were all from neighbouring countries. The refugees fleeing Burma, or whatever it calls itself now, fled to Malaysia. You flee across the border. You do not pick a spot on the other side of the globe to go to. That is not fleeing; you are going somewhere that you want to go to.
Why do they want to come here? These people are coming from countries where they are on $5,000-a-year incomes. On welfare here, if you have a couple of kids, you are entitled to $60,000 a year. Why wouldn't they come here? Two and a half thousand of them have died trying to get here. The previous speaker said, 'You are putting these people at risk.' I tell you what is putting them at risk. It is you saying, 'Yes, you can come in.' If we elect the Labor Party here, there will be an open-door policy, as there was previously, for boat people.
There are two countries on earth that will not take these refugees. One is Saudi Arabia and the other one is Dubai. After the last attempt at mass killing, which was on the edge of the Kennedy electorate—some of the people working there were actually from the Kennedy electorate and the town is two kilometres outside the Kennedy electorate—I said, 'Well, that is it for me. There are no more people coming in from the Middle East. We are going to move legislation so that there are no more people coming in from the area between Greece and India—no more people.' I am sorry but it is too risky bringing in new people from North Africa and from the Middle East into this country.
We accept, of course, the persecuted minority groups who are obviously persecuted there—the Sikhs, the Jews, and the Christians. We do not include them in the ban. You say that is anti-Muslim. No, it is not. I did not mention the biggest Muslim country on earth, which is Indonesia. I did not say anything about Indonesia. They do not have any terrorists in Albania; I did not say anything about Albania, and it is a Muslim country. It is not against Muslims. It is against countries that have a culture and a continuous history of extreme violence.
Are you telling me that the Prime Minister—I am going to criticise the Liberals—who has gone out there and make a big man of himself on the international stage saying, 'I'm going to bring 18,000 refugees in and there are going to be no terrorists amongst them. They're going to come from Middle Eastern countries, and they are not going to be Christian or Jewish or Sikhs, but there are going to be no terrorists amongst them.' Is there anyone in this country who seriously believes that proposition?
I warn the major parties that we other parties got 25 per cent in the last election, and we will get much more in the next election. When we hit 30 per cent your day is finished, and you deserve it to be finished. You have destroyed every manufacturing industry in this country— (Time expired)
Lyndon B. Johnson said that a President's hardest task is not to do what is right but to know what is right. That is our Prime Minister's challenge too. Most people who would fall within the cohort covered by this bill, people who have come by boat seeking asylum since June 2013, will have been conferred with refugee status—
Why don't they seek asylum in neighbouring countries, in Muslim countries?
Order!
By definition they have fled persecution for reasonable fear of it.
Answer the question! Why don't they seek asylum in their own countries?
The member for Kennedy has had his go.
Each of them is a person who has asked for our help, and how we go about helping them will have an impact on people beyond that cohort. It will affect those people who are in transit countries, the places they have got to so far, the places they are now contemplating leaving in search of a place that is a signatory to the refugee convention. It will affect them because of expectations about whether the maritime route to Australia is open; it will affect whether or not they take the risk of getting on a boat, assuming they know the extent of the risk in the first place, which is not a safe assumption. How we treat the people who are on Nauru or Manus will also affect another cohort of people: the Australian people. It will affect how we see ourselves and how the world sees us. Our broader humanitarian settings will affect others as well. Those settings will affect which of the 60 million or so displaced people in the world will be welcomed into Australia through our Humanitarian Program.
I do not pretend there are easy answers when assessing the right thing to do. It is precisely because there are no easy answers that we need a Prime Minister with a strong moral compass and we need a Prime Minister who can meet the challenge of knowing what is right. I suspect this Prime Minister does not have that moral compass. If he thinks that having the immigration minister announce, on a Sunday, without any consultation, that this government wants to legislate to stop a certain cohort of refugees and others who have sought our help from ever coming to Australia, if he thinks that was the right thing to do he is incapable of determining what is right. If he thinks the lack of hope facing refugees on Manus Island and Nauru is something he should leverage for votes here at home he is incapable of determining what is right. That is a very great shame because right now it could not be more critical that we have a Prime Minister who can tell right from wrong.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe he can tell right from wrong. Maybe he knows what he is doing with this bill is wrong. Maybe he knows it is wrong to continue the great polarisation of our country that has occurred over the past two decades. Maybe he knows it was wrong to drop this out in a press conference on a Sunday morning and then demand we vote for it. Maybe he knows it is wrong to cynically treat the suffering—the previous suffering through persecution or the risk of it and the current suffering, of very different kind, that comes about through a lack of hope—as a way of winning votes in an election. If so, I am not sure whether that is even worse because that speaks to a lack of coverage. That speaks to knowing what is right but not even having the fortitude to do it.
In either case, this bill is really speaking to a lot about what is wrong with politics in this country. It is a bill that is calculated to say to people that it is okay to not want to help people who are in trouble. It is a bill that is a calculated repudiation of 'love thy neighbour'. It is a bill that is a calculated repudiation of the idea that if people are fleeing persecution it is absolutely fine to not want to help them. That is what this bill does.
Like almost all Australians, I have been appalled by what has been happening on Nauru and Manus Island. I have been appalled by the reports that I have read about what has happened. I am not going to stand here and pretend that there is a simple answer, as I have said. There is not. With so many people in the world needing help, with so many people in the world seeking help, with the importance of strong borders, with the importance of making sure that we provide the best help that we can, of course there are not simple answers. But it is no answer to leave people in a situation of being in limbo, of hopelessness and of suffering. It is no answer to fail to provide adequate accommodation facilities. It is no answer to scrap Labor's policy of 90-day processing times. It is no answer to drag your feet in finding places for people to live. It is no answer to come into this parliament, which designed to uphold and create the laws in the best interests of the Australian people, and say, 'Here is what is in the best interest of the Australian people,' when it is to take the references to the Refugee Convention out of our domestic law. And that is what this government has done.
None of those things is an answer to the complex set of policy circumstances that we face when it comes to refugees. This government is contributing to the polarisation of our community; and it is contributing to the idea that it is okay to turn your back. Boats were turned away and refugees were turned away after the Holocaust. Turning away refugees is something that has been a source of great shame to people for many, many years—for more than seven decades. No-one, of course, is saying that any one nation is capable of providing a comprehensive response to the global people movement crisis that we face, but we must all as nations work together to do that. That means strengthening our support and respect for international law, not turning our backs upon it.
It also means not giving into extremism. I quoted LBJ when I started speaking. Another thing that LBJ said was that a president cannot give into extremism, a president must govern in moderation. But this bill is about extremism. This bill has echoes of the campaign style of former prime minister, when, as opposition leader, he drove around this country with billboards with pictures of boats on them. He was not saying to people, 'It is terrible that people have drowned, and that is a policy problem that we must respond to.' He was saying to people, 'Too many refugees are asking for help, and it is okay for you to resent that.' That is what that campaign was about; that is what this bill is about—the despicable conduct in making it okay for people to fail to recognise the humanity in others.
I mentioned 'love thy neighbour' before. I am not a practising Christian; I am a secular humanist. In any language 'love thy neighbour' is an important principle for humanity. The secular humanist approach might be: the fact that I acknowledge my own humanity and acknowledge yours means that I owe to you an obligation to try to help you when you are in need. To put it another way, the fact that we have free will obliges us to exercise moral decision making in the choices we make. We have those obligations and we have those duties. The question is: whether we discharge them and, if so, how?
There has probably never been a more important time in the past seven decades than now to reflect on these questions, because we need to bring people together. It is not okay to keep dividing people up into ever smaller slices of the population and pitch to them about their specific fears. It is not okay to continue along this path, taking people who are in genuine need and diverting their attention from what can be done to respond to that need by engendering fear of others who are also in genuine need. There is enough of that in this world to go around, but it takes courage and it takes political will.
I count myself very fortunate right now to be an Australian citizen. I count myself as fortunate because I have seen what has been happening in the UK and in the USA is a direct consequence of the policies of Thatcher and Reagan in the 1980s and of the approaches that have been taken in those countries ever since: the hollowing out of the middle class; the growth in extreme inequality; the situation where real incomes have actually fallen for people in the middle class; the situation where you can work full-time and still live in poverty; the situation where you are unable to have access to life-saving medical treatment and surgery in the absence of charity because you do not have that right. People are in genuine need. The idea that you can just have industries disappear, that you can just have jobs disappear, that you can have middle-class incomes going backward, that you can have working poor, and that the way to deal with those things is massive cuts in taxation for corporations and the very rich.
That idea is the reduction of the progressivity of the income tax rate and the reduction of corporate tax rates—and if not the actual rates, the collection of corporate taxes, which has the same effect. It is the idea that you can have policies that promote the payment of dividends to shareholders rather than reinvest capital in businesses to make them more productive, thus generating economic growth and giving people the benefits of that economic growth. It is the idea that you should break apart the collectivism of the working classes, to take away their power, so that you can pay them less and avoid the sort of red tape the conservatives talk about, which is code for safety laws. It is the idea that you can do all of those things to break the power of the people at their expense and for the benefit of a small handful of very wealthy people, which is really the effect that those Reagan and Thatcherist policies have had.
It is an idea that has led to the disenfranchisement and anger that you saw expressed in Brexit and you have seen expressed today. As I said, it makes me grateful to be an Australian, because at the time they had Thatcher and Reagan we had Hawke and Keating. We had the Prices and Incomes Accord; we had the idea that it was not just tolerable for people to be collective, but an important social institution to be part of a collective that works. We had the establishment of Medicare; we had the establishment of universal superannuation; we had governments that said no to the neo-liberal agenda of cutting taxes for the very rich, cutting corporate taxes, hollowing out public services, shrinking the size of governments, leaving people to fend for themselves. That is why today we do not have the prospect of an extremist becoming the prime minister of this country, but I am worried about the tendency for those who are in power may start to exhibit some signs of extremism. As I said, this bill—
I am incredibly pleased to rise tonight after listening to the member for Griffith, and in the company of the member for Greenway and the member for Gorton—all great feminists. Tonight I want to speak to the many women in the electorate of Lalor and around the country who might be going to bed disappointed with the result of the US election. It may seem strange that I am speaking about the American election in this place. I am not commenting on the result or on the quality of the Republican candidate. Having said that, the result is not as strong for Hillary Clinton as was hoped for by many women around the world and by many women and colleagues who share this chamber with me. Many of us were hoping to see the first female leader of the free world win convincingly.
There is a young man in my office who sent me his resume only because Obama became President in 2008. I am worried that there are dozens of capable, insightful and talented women who will not think to send me their resumes in the future. If a former Secretary of State, senator, First Lady, leader of an international charity, and stateswoman who negotiated trade deals, negotiated peace with Iran and gave the right advice on Osama Bin Laden cannot be elected Commander-in-Chief without hesitation or drama, I can imagine why some women around the country—and, indeed, the world—are shattered tonight.
I have spent my lifetime in schools watching young female teachers wait until they have put in twice the work of their male counterparts before putting their hands up for promotions. They think they will embarrass themselves, that people will be critical of them if they are not perfect. I have always told them that they needed to get that out of their heads, but it is not in their heads. It is real, and we have to take action now. Tonight proves that.
When public debate becomes a screaming match, as it too often does, people vote based on gut feeling. We have to confront the harsh reality that for too many people—women and men—the initial response to the idea of female leadership is to be sceptical. This is not just an American issue; we have had our fair share of average male political leaders who were given numerous chances to prove themselves and time to find their feet. They were given time to grow into the role. None of that is afforded to women, and it is the case in most businesses and industries, and, unfortunately, in government. As it stands, women who have made it to the heights of politics are anything but average; they are over-qualified, incredibly talented and brilliant.
However, they are made to run a gauntlet that men never are. Julia Gillard said of her prime ministership that gender explains some things, but it does not explain everything. I agree with what she said, but gender should not explain anything in politics—or anywhere else, for that matter. A culture that is sceptical of women in leadership can only be described as toxic. It is only going to be change, though, if women take this experience and use it to become stronger. It is not good enough that the Australian government in 2016 is 80 per cent male. I am proud that Labor has committed to equality with our fifty-fifty target, but we can do more to change the culture.
Young women interested in government and interested in politics, whether they be Greens, Labor, Liberal or any other party, should not give up on politics. Do not let tonight dissuade you; use it as fuel. It is time for women to call out sexism, where they see it, and refuse to be silenced. Women need to organise and come together on every level of government and business to make change happen. We cannot afford to wait for it. That is how we will change the culture that makes it so hard for our best and brightest to succeed. Women need to be in the room when decisions are made. They need to be seen discussing important issues. They cannot, and should not, wait for men to get them there. The light may be on a steep hill, but we cannot afford not to climb it. The glass ceiling must be damned, and women tonight should commit to support one another to make sure that the representation of women in this parliament and every parliament around the world means we have women leaders.
Congratulations to the member for Lalor. That was an outstanding speech. I have the pleasure tonight to speak on an industry that has existed in this country for some 165 years and had a profound impact on my upbringing growing up as a child in Western Australia's goldfields. The industry I speak of is the gold industry. It is an industry that was responsible for the birth of my hometown of Kalgoorlie, an industry that employed many family members and an industry that has many highs and lows.
Unfortunately, I feel that the gold and other mineral and resources industries do not always get the credit they deserve for their contribution to our economy. Generally speaking, the mining sector is still experiencing returns, though some more modest than others, on their investments in Western Australia, but this should not be cause for attack, or for a campaign against the industry; this should be a cause for celebration, given the thousands of people employed in this very important industry. Mining companies need to invest significant funds in project development, and it often takes years to complete the infrastructure needed for large-scale mining operations to commence. As a resources lawyer in my past life I have experienced firsthand the highs and lows of mining project development. During the years in project development the price for a commodity being explored can rise or drop considerably, and there are numerous cases when a mining project becomes untenable before one iota of gold, iron ore or gas has been extracted.
The goldmining industry in the 1800s gave the average Australian arguably the highest standard of living of anyone in the world. This is highlighted by one incredible statistic: once gold was found in Australia in the 1850s, our national population trebled in the space of just 10 short years. This is the equivalent of our current national population of 24 million jumping to a whopping 72 million in the space of 10 years. You can see how significant it was back in the 1850s and '60s.
The gold industry is currently experiencing a resurgence and we are witnessing a significant increase in exploration activity. The end result is more jobs for Western Australians now and the prospect of more jobs in the future. Given the current economic climate in Western Australia, which has experienced rising unemployment and a slowdown across the resources sector, this contribution cannot be understated. Times are a bit tough in the west at the moment, and we need to be doing everything we can to encourage the industries that are surviving and are employing Western Australians.
We are seeing relatively smaller gold companies having considerable success in turning what were considered to be unprofitable, unsuccessful goldmining ventures into profitable and sustainable projects, employing a lot of Australians along the way. These are the types of projects that make me proud of my electorate and of WA more broadly, as well as of the people who live in it. These hardworking, risk-taking people from the bush who stick their neck out and succeed where others have failed deserve to be praised but instead are often misunderstood by the media and those living in cities.
The mining industry has grown our GDP, employed our population and trained our next generation. Yet the industry rarely gets a pat on the back, and this is something that I feel deeply disappointed about. The gold industry in Western Australia accounts for 68 per cent of Australia's overall gold production, with Australia being the world's second-largest gold producer. Gold is our third-largest mineral export, and in the 2015-16 financial year our gold exports were valued at some $16 billion, with that number likely to increase again this financial year. I believe goldmining is an industry that has helped Australia to the privileged position we are currently experiencing, with gold responsible for driving our living standards in the earliest days of this nation.
With the time I have left I want to comment on something that I am particularly disappointed about. The numbers studying at the School of Mines in Kalgoorlie is dropping. This means that fewer Australians are going to be mining experts in the future. My message to year 12 school leavers and their parents is to seriously consider undertaking university qualifications relevant to the mining sector. I promise them: like the mining and resources sector, you will have a bright future.
Tonight I want to talk about the importance of accessibility in communications. It is self-evident that communications services are essential to our way of life. Consider for a moment what it would mean to live in the 21st century without access to basic communications services—broadcasting, broadband or telephony. Such a situation is incompatible with our values as a society and the importance we attach to ensuring that all Australians have equality of access to participate in society.
This underscores why Australian citizens as consumers are at the centre of Labor's communications policy focus. As the shadow minister for communications, one of my primary imperatives is to ensure that every Australian has access to quality communications services. Access means different things to different people and in different contexts. One aspect of the broader accessibility obligation is a commitment to advocate for those with a disability. That is something that I know is shared amongst colleagues in this House.
Earlier this year ABC decided to reduce the scope of its transcription services for news and current affairs programs. Subsequently, on 18 October this year, under questioning by my colleague Kim Carr in Senate estimates, the ABC revealed that this reduction achieved the modest saving of $210,000. I was deeply concerned to hear about this, as were many others. Australia's Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Alastair McEwin, noted that the decision would affect thousands of people with a disability and would prevent these ABC programs from being accessible to all Australians. Senator Carol Brown and I have written to the ABC seeking more information about the changes and urging the ABC to consult with stakeholders in advance of such decisions moving forward and to reverse the decision if consultation establishes that there is an adverse impact on accessibility.
Unfortunately the reduction in services comes as no surprise. The challenges facing the ABC are well known. Our national broadcaster has been forced to find savings in response to the savage funding cuts of $250 million or so imposed by the Abbott and Turnbull governments. This was despite the explicit promise before the 2013 election that there would be no cuts to the ABC. It should not be lost on anyone that adequate funding and support for better and more accessible services in communications go hand in hand.
Technological change is creating new opportunities to make services more accessible. For example, the availability of services on iview with closed captioning opens up a wealth of new content for those who are deaf or hearing impaired. I also note the positive contributions the ABC has made to promoting accessibility on its new platforms. In 2013 the ABC agreed to make its main mobile app accessible after complaints made to the former Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Graeme Innes. Mr Innes, who is blind, found that the app was not compatible with the iPhone's screen reader VoiceOver, which converts text to audio feedback. Mr Innes found that many buttons were unlabelled while the news articles were completely inaccessible. To their credit, and in the context of harsh budget cuts, the ABC did improve their app. Nevertheless, this is a reminder that as technology enables expansion in the range of services we must also aim to ensure that the platforms supporting these new services are accessible by design.
The ABC indicated that the reduction in transcription services was based on the assessment that the increased use of catch-up platforms has reduced audience need for transcription services. This is not an unreasonable proposition. Viewing habits are changing as the internet and small devices combine to make viewing content easier and more convenient for consumers. But the issue arises that when we segment the users of transcription services we can see the unique value this service would afford to Australians who are deaf or hearing impaired. What is the value they place on this service? It is useful to step back and frame the discussion in more general terms. I have a firm belief that we must turn to principles when faced with such change.
Firstly, we should agree that efficiency driven decisions should not have automatic precedence over the principle at stake when it comes to ensuring that people with a disability have access to services. Secondly, when we identify that a change in how services are delivered would have or would potentially have an adverse impact on accessibility, we should consult with relevant stakeholders to enhance our understanding of that impact and revisit it as necessary. Ultimately, in the absence of regulation, how organisations proceed with such decisions depends on exercising a judgement about the right thing to do. I firmly believe that a principles based approach will help ensure that decisions with potential impacts are considered in a careful and sensitive way to the benefit of all Australians.
We cannot steer a proper path for our future if we disregard our past. Friday is the 11th day of the 11th month; it is Remembrance Day. And on the 11th hour of that day every year, Australia stops to honour our past and the sacrifices our service men and women made for our future. This year we commemorate the 98th anniversary of the armistice, when the guns fell silent, signifying the end of World War I. Four years of war had come to an end.
Known as the Great War for good reason, its scale was unprecedented. It ignited the mobilisation of 70 million people across many nations and 13 million people died—nine million of them combatants. More than a third of all the soldiers killed were 'missing' or had no known graves. Three hundred and thirty-two thousand Australians fought in the Great War with the First Australian Infantry Force, 60,000 died and 152,000 were wounded. With a population of about four million, Australia had, proportionate to forces fielded, the highest casualties in the British Empire. While the armistice came as a great reprieve to those at home, for the men on the front it was tempered with great loss. Too many of their mates had been killed. 'One sits and ponders sadly of those many pals who are gone to that home from which no wanderer returns,' lamented Corporal Roger Morgan of the 2nd Battalion.
On the Western Front, in Gallipoli and in the desert, Australians encountered the mass killing power of modern industrial warfare. But in battle after battle that war machine could not threaten the bonds of mateship and the Aussie spirit that held them together. At Fromelles, where more than 5,500 Australians became casualties in a single night, mates searched no-man's-land for days afterwards to recover the wounded.
Australia lost many young men, such as Port Lincoln lad, Corporal Arnold Harry Leane of the 27th Battalion, killed in action on the battlefield on 5 November 1916 aged just 20; Burra labourer Private Hedley Trevilyan, 10th Battalion, killed in action in France on 10 June 1916 at the age of 21; and Kadina carpenter, Private William Horace Lamshed, 10th Battalion, killed in action on 20 September 1917. He was just 23 when he died. In my electorate of Grey, where these young men came from and where some of their families still live today, every town has a memorial with their names on them. Lest we ever forget. There are so many names; the impact on small communities must have been enormous. I was in Hawker the other day, and there were, I think, 60 people lost in action from World War I from this tiny town of 250 people today.
Our war dead are scattered across far-flung lands. They lie in over a hundred cemeteries. Every one of the names on the Roll of Honour and in the Remembrance Book was somebody's husband, son, father or brother, leaving behind a wife, mother, daughter or sister grieving for their lost lives. Their lives were precious to their families, to Australia and, above all, to those who gave them. They never had the chance to grow old or to watch those dear to them grow old. But Australia's First World War dead fell for a cause and their sacrifice must never be forgotten. Those men knew if the struggle were lost, Australia would be a very different place. They knew that future Australians would not be able to rejoice because their country was free and its destiny was theirs to determine. These brave volunteer soldiers fought and died to prevent that happening. They held to the ideals of mateship and country.
Remembrance Day is observed in 23 countries across the world and is a day to be reminded that there is nothing glorious about war. It is the responsibility of all of us to encourage young Australians to seek a greater understanding that the freedom we enjoy in this country relies on the bravery of our forces past and present. To understand the legend of Australians at war, forged on the rock-strewn slopes and ragged gullies of Gallipoli, in Europe and the Middle East, is to gain an insight into the Australian psyche: a gallant and honourable defeat against almost insurmountable odds.
Remembrance Day also commemorates all those who have fallen in other wars for Australia. There were 39,652 Australians killed in action during World War II, 340 killed in Korea, 521 in Vietnam, 42 in Afghanistan and two in Iraq—a total of 102,824. To families who have made the greatest sacrifice of all, we must guarantee that Australia never forgets. We must also affirm that we are willing to defend the rights and principals of our free functioning democracy. (Time expired)
'Very, very frustrating'; 'Endless problems causing great stress and problems'; 'I have no idea how the elderly, those who live alone or with a disability will ever manage. Something needs to be done.' These are just three of the recent complaints I have had about the NBN rollout in my electorate of Kingston in South Australia. The rollout of the NBN across Australia under this government has been abysmal. Under Malcolm Turnbull's watch, the cost of this second-rate network has nearly doubled; the time taken to install the system has more than doubled; and Australia has dropped to 60th in the world for internet speeds.
I feel that I have to get up time and time again to call the government to action on what has been a disastrous rollout of an essential service that is needed in my electorate. We have seen stuff-up after stuff-up during the recent rollout of the NBN in my electorate, with confusion and delay an everyday occurrence. My office has been inundated with and complaints about connection issues, service difficulties and problems with providers. I have received complaints from businesses and constituents who experience problems on every level. For example, on the connection, stating:
Having signed up with an ISP in connection in July, they inform me that the NBN is not ready for another six weeks.
And the:
… work was completed in April yet we are still not connected and don't look like getting connected in the near future.
And:
… NBN has come to Hallett Cove. Everywhere except 6 houses in my street. Our neighbours can get it. We have been left off the roll out. I have contacted NBN, the Ombudsman and various internet providers... no one can give us answers.
To services, with community members caught between NBN and their providers, with NBN blaming service providers and service providers blaming the NBN. Well, the buck stops with this Prime Minister.
A regular complaint that community members have is that they book an appointment with nbn co to be connected; they fail to show up to the appointment; they rebook a second appointment; and, then, once again, no-one shows up. A constituent of mine asserts that NBN cancelled four appointments with him over a four-month period, with no reasons given for the cancellation.
And when they finally are connected, many of my constituents highlight that the speeds are at times 'actually slower than the previous ADSL connection'. There is all this hoo-ha from this Prime Minister, and the speeds are slower. I have received complaints from a local business that has been put under pressure as a direct result of the delays with the construction of the NBN. I think my constituent from Hallett Cove put it best when he called the current rollout of the NBN an 'embarrassing fiasco'.
The Prime Minister made a lot of promises. He made a lot of promises as communications minister and a lot of promises as Prime Minister. What has become clear, as the buck stops with this Prime Minister, is that he has failed. He has failed to deliver the most essential service to my electorate—that is, a decent broadband connection. He talks about innovation. He talks about being agile. But what he will not do and what he did not do as communications minister is actually provide the basic infrastructure to allow that innovation to happen.
We have seen Australia's internet speeds drop from 30th to 60th in the world. Therefore, it is very clear that we are not keeping up with the rest of the world, as a result primarily of this Prime Minister's plan to do a second-rate broadband, to rely on the copper in the ground as the solution. Of course, one of the reasons we were going to rely on the copper, according to the Prime Minister, was that we would get the NBN sooner. In fact, at the end of this year, we were all going to be connected to 25 megabits. Well, time is ticking, Prime Minister. We are getting very close to the end of the year and there are many thousands of my constituents that do not have 25 megabits per second. And of course, this NBN fiasco has not come at a cheaper price.
So I urge the Prime Minister to actually reconsider this failed plan, his failed second-rate NBN is not doing any good out there in the community. It is time he realised that fibre to the home is the only option. That is what my constituents demand, and that is what he should deliver.
Sometimes in the different roles we take on as parliamentarians we have the rare privilege to visit other countries to see the work of our government in delivering foreign aid, where it is being directed, to see the work of the international non-government organisations and to meet with extraordinary people who are volunteering and making a difference to the lives of so many others.
I often sing the praises of our volunteers in Gilmore. Recently, I was able to draw some parallels and also be inspired for projects in our own region. Initially, ideas began to develop while being part of the parliamentary delegation to Papua New Guinea, and then as the Vice President of the Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development—AFPPD for short.
The Australian relationship with Papua New Guinea is one of building capacity and support. It is one of prioritising health and education initiatives which is a cross-country issue, much like here at home, but in PNG there are many complexities that make this a difficult, but not impossible, task.
Governance in any developing nation is an issue, and one where Australia is assisting PNG. There is already an Institute of Public Administration, but now with Australia's help there is a plan for a Pacific Leadership and Governance Precinct. We met with future leaders for public service positions. The rationale for this precinct is to develop it as a governance hub of excellence for other Pacific Islanders to attend. This will give a better and more open distribution of foreign aid as well as develop a public service capable of delivering the much-needed health, education and security needs for their nations.
It was inspiring to meet the graduates who had studied in our universities, and to hear their stories and their successes. The Shoalhaven Education Fund gives similar opportunities to passionate and dedicated students in our region. They too share a love of their country and have great pride in their achievements.
The group known as CARE is delivering women's economic empowerment programs, particularly in the coffee industry, where traditionally women were just involved in the harvesting and post-harvesting activities, and rarely with the marketing. One of the women, Selene, is an amazing coffee person, and she has connections in Canberra. Oxfam is funding programs to address gender inequality and making all sorts of matters related to domestic violence a priority.
World Vision and Save the Children Fund are making significant impacts in Papua New Guinea. However, some of the strongest insights came from the 11th women parliamentarians conference, sponsored by AFPPD. I introduced one session with these words:
There is nothing greater in this world than enabling another person to become the best that they can be. Madame Curie believed that 'we must believe that we are gifted for something, and that this thing, at whatever cost, must be attained.' So each of us here gathered in this room—
And also here in this House—
is gifted for something. I would suggest that we are here to act as catalysts of change for our nations and our people, but most importantly for our women and our girls.
Part of our journey to women's empowerment in developing nations is to reduce child marriages and domestic violence, as this all too often reduces the future economic contribution that the woman can make.
Domestic violence around the world is objectionable, whether directed to a man, a woman or a child. It is wrong, and we need to help all those who suffer at the hands of someone they once cared for and once were a part of the care system. We collectively are greater than the sum of our individual selves. I selected a quote from Malala Yousafzai:
I raise up my voice – not so that I can shout, but so that those without a voice can be heard.
And:
We cannot all succeed when half of us are held back.
We as parliamentarians have that responsibility.
There were five inspirational sessions after that, with take-home messages for everyone attending, whether from a developed or a developing nation. Some can easily be adapted here and in Gilmore. I will be exploring these in a new model of opinion-swapping and discussion. They included: women's collectives, a need for financial literacy, increasing entrepreneurship enterprises and better access to training, possibly for cultural purposes or in emerging industry.
We need to encourage our youth to think up brilliant ideas; challenge them to focus on it and be encouraged to grow it as a business or a concept; look at these as achievement targets to change our outlook; to change our region and to change our nation. It was truly an inspirational trip and one that can be shared easily with others to make us feel better about ourselves and our relationship with other nations.
House adjourned at 20:00
I take the opportunity today to rise to celebrate the 25th anniversary a couple of weeks ago of the Comprehensive Cambodian Peace Agreement, known as the Paris agreement. Australia, as people know, played a very significant role in bringing the parties together to conclude this agreement, and it ended one of the most brutal and shocking periods in human history, particularly the rule of the Khmer Rouge regime, which was followed then by a war with Vietnam.
The first and most obvious example of the benefits of this agreement was to bring peace to this terrible conflict. But there was also in the agreement a very clear promise of free and fair elections, a flourishing civil society and economic development for the Cambodian people. Tragically, those promises have not been met. There is very widespread concern at the lack of political freedom under the Hun Sen regime and at the ongoing abuse of a range of human rights. Just one indicator is that Cambodia continues to languish at 128th in the World Press Freedom Index, with the regular abuse and sometimes killing of journalists in that country. There are also significant bans on public protests and ongoing prohibitions against industrial action. The 2013 election was universally condemned as heavily rigged in favour of the Hun Sen regime, and there is very significant focus on the prospects for free and fair elections in 2017 at the local level and 2018 at a national level.
Twenty-five years on from the agreement, it is beyond time that the Cambodian people were delivered the promise of the Paris agreement and able to vote and participate in free and fair elections. There is, as you know, Deputy Speaker Bird, a vibrant Cambodian Australian community living in Australia including in my electorate of Port Adelaide. Some 30,000 Australians were born in Cambodia. They have obviously given birth to many others who form part of a very vibrant community. I am proud to have worked very closely with the community in Adelaide, a vibrant active community that is still focused on what is happening back home in Cambodia.
I met recently with representatives of the Cambodian Australian Federation and office holders of the official opposition, the CNRP, including the president in Adelaide, Mr Someth Lem, as well as a number of his colleagues. We discussed what the Australian government could do to encourage free and fair elections in Cambodia, as well as the very disturbing case of the murder of political activist Dr Kem Ley, as well as the situation of his widow and his children. I have written to the government on both of these matters. I am very pleased to say I received a detailed reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs outlining Australia's work both bilaterally and within the United Nations to ensure free and fair elections.
I rise today to call on local councils across central Queensland to state their opinion on the proposed Rookwood Weir near Rockhampton. I am fed up with the lack of encouraging support for the project from state Labor MPs, including Queensland's temporary agriculture minister, Bill Byrne. Central Queensland civic leaders including mayors and individual councillors now need to clearly and unambiguously state their position on the weir. The federal Turnbull-Joyce government has put $132 million on the table for Rookwood Weir. Now we are hearing whispers that some factions are white-anting the project behind closed doors. If that is the case, these people risk losing the project forever, along with 2,100 new jobs and the opportunity to increase agricultural production by $1 billion a year.
In saying that, I do welcome and acknowledge the strong support for Rookwood Weir from Livingstone Shire Mayor Bill Ludwig and his council team from the coast. However, I warn other neighbouring councils not to be complacent about the project. I have been dismayed by the relative silence from some local governments since the Commonwealth announced it would back the Rockhampton, Livingstone and Gladstone communities to the hilt by paying for half of the construction costs.
It is now time for all councillors in Central Queensland to clearly state their current position. There is no middle ground here: either you want Rookwood Weir 100 per cent or you do not. There is no other water project close to Rockhampton that will be funded by the Commonwealth. You are either with the Australian government on this important project for your region or not, and if you are not supportive then you should be prepared for the funding to go to another state. The project now has both the Prime Minister's and the Deputy Prime Minister's full support. But, while state Labor dance a political game over our region's future, there is a deafening silence from some local councillors in Central Queensland about the future of Rookwood. I need to know by the end of this week if civic leaders across Central Queensland are in favour of the project proceeding.
Based on historic modelling, the state department of environment and water has already identified that Rockhampton, Livingston and Gladstone are in danger of running out of water for three years in every 100 years—a problem that Rookwood would resolve. Further to this, when it comes to water, Infrastructure Australia has already identified this region as one of the four regions across Australia with the potential for significant growth if water infrastructure is put in place.
I rise today to speak about the great results for Country Labor in our recent local government elections on the New South Wales North Coast. I will begin with the Byron Shire, where Country Labor's Paul Spooner and Jan Hackett were elected with a strong groundswell of support for Labor and a progressive council. I know that both Paul and Jan bring their extensive experience to the shire, and it really was their passion for social justice and equity that shone through in the Byron campaign, particularly their emphasis on affordable housing.
In Lismore I would like to congratulate the newly elected Labor mayor, Isaac Smith, and Labor councillors Eddie Lloyd and Darlene Cook. All of them have a long history of advocacy and standing up for Labor values. It is wonderful to see such a strong Labor presence on Lismore council. I also note the retirement at the last election of the previous Labor mayor, Jenny Dowell. Jenny was a much respected and admired mayor, and we all wish you well.
In the Ballina Shire, I want to make special mention of and to congratulate Keith Williams and Nathan Willis. Although Keith and Nathan did not run as endorsed Labor candidates, they are outstanding Labor people and will make their community an even better place to live. Ballina locals know very well Keith's commitment to the community through the Ballina Seabird Rescue and Nathan's as a human rights lawyer.
Now I go to the Tweed Shire. Country Labor proudly ran a ticket with Reece Byrnes, Russell Logan, Marie Rogers and Rob Learmonth. We had a great result with the election of Reece Byrnes not only as councillor but also as the youngest ever councillor elected to Tweed Shire Council. Reece is a lifetime local, born in the area to a local fishing family. I know he has a passionate and strong commitment to the area and will work very hard for our community. In the Tweed Shire, the election date was originally scheduled for 10 September; however, it was delayed until 29 October due to the very sad death of Ken Nicholson, a candidate on Ron Cooper's 'No High Rise' ticket. I would like to pay tribute to Ken Nicholson and acknowledge his advocacy and tireless work for the community across so many important issues over so many years, most recently with the campaign to protect lot 490 at Kingscliff. Ken was a committed advocate, fighting for justice, and he was greatly respected in our community and will be missed very much.
The result of the Tweed Shire Council election is that Tweed has a progressive council with Labor representation—a great result. It is a council that will protect the community from the harmful and environmentally disastrous plans of the Liberal-National Party, which we have seen at all levels of government only put the big end of town first and completely ignore the community. In contrast, our Labor councillors right across the New South Wales North Coast will listen and consult and work closely with our community to get great results for our region. Again, I congratulate all of our successful Country Labor candidates and wish them all the best for the future in their respective shires.
Today I would like to pay a tribute to the Camden community in my electorate and mention a couple of great things that are underway locally. Team Kermit is a fantastic initiative supporting more than 70 local families who have kids living with cancer. Team Kermit have just returned from their sixth Camp Quality car rally, raising $82,000 for the kids' cancer charity. Thanks to the commitment of people like Rob Elliott, Marty Magro, Barrie Grimes and John and Wayne Gannon, Camp Quality can continue its magical work for children battling cancer.
Also doing great things in my electorate for cancer support services are the team behind Camden and Districts Rotary Relay for Life. Their September event raised a whopping $200,000 and counting. A thousand people joined in, walking a combined total of more than 6,500 kilometres around the track at Onslow Park. It was a magnificent effort by the community and the organising committee, led by Aneek Mollah, Matt Playford and Ross Newport.
The Camden region, while experiencing tremendous growth, is still very much defined by its sense of community. That is one of its greatest assets. It is also a district fiercely proud of its history. The 7th Light Horse Regiment Menangle Historic Troop from the Camden area was formed to remember the traditions of the Australian Light Horse. It was a mounted infantry regiment of the Australian Army during the First World War and the first mounted light horse cavalry unit in Australia. It was raised in October 1914 and assigned to the 2nd Light Horse Brigade. I would like to thank the regiment for recently making me an honorary trooper and patron. I thank President Leonard Carter, a direct descendant of a World War I light horseman, for welcoming me to his troop of military history guardians. This is a great honour.
The Camden region is also the toast of Hollywood right now. Bringelly, a village to the north of Camden, is providing the battle setting in Mel Gibson's latest blockbuster Hacksaw Ridge. I might add that Goulburn, in the heart of Hume, was a fine support act, with the cliff scenes in the movie filmed there. That is something for movie buffs to look out for—and it is a terrific movie.
Camden sits at the centre of much of the development around the new Western Sydney Airport. Effectively we are building a new city there. While there is change coming to the region, I know that great community spirit will remain and so will the strong sense of pride in the area's history. Camden has a tremendous past and an exciting future. It is a privilege to be serving this community as the local federal member.
Since being elected to parliament three years ago, I have been actively campaigning to improve communications across the Lake Macquarie and Central Coast region. I am pleased today to provide an update on the state of communications in Shortland and the broader region. There are three key issues that are regularly raised with me by constituents: the farcical rollout of the National Broadband Network and significant issues with television and mobile phone reception.
One of my first acts as the member for Shortland was to conduct a digital survey of the electorate to get a better understanding about the communications issues my constituents are contending with. The feedback from this survey was clear: the people of Shortland are frustrated by both the rollout of the NBN and the service they are getting once they can access it. There are also ongoing problems with digital television and mobile phone reception.
On television reception: I have raised multiple times in this chamber the inadequacy of digital television reception in many parts of my electorate. The shocking fact is that many of my constituents have transferred from analog to digital and this transfer has resulted in poorer TV reception and, in some cases, a complete loss of television services. Being able to access free-to-air television is of fundamental importance in our modern society. Whether it is for accessing news, education or entertainment, free-to-air TV is a necessity, especially in my area, which is dominated by elderly constituents and where internet speeds are quite slow. This is really important not just as a way of helping with isolation but because constituents must have access to television as a fundamental input into our democratic decision-making processes. It is almost criminal that constituents in an electorate only one hour's drive from Australia's largest city cannot get free-to-air television. I will continue to campaign on this issue.
Another major source of concern for my constituents has been the rollout of the NBN in our area. Firstly, Malcolm Turnbull's NBN is a second-rate waste of money. It is beyond disappointing that my constituents have to put up with fibre to the node rather than Labor's far superior fibre to the premises. The rollout of the NBN has also been substandard. Many of my constituents have been left without telephone connections for weeks or sometimes months at a time. Just think about the impact this would have had on my constituents relying on medical alert alarms, on businesses that have not been able to conduct their normal work or on students who have had their studies impacted.
Finally, a common complaint has been that, once connected to the NBN, internet speeds have been slower than ADSL2. Let me repeat that. Some of the residents on NBN are getting slower speeds than ADSL2. This is not good enough. Addressing these communication problems is one of my key priorities, and I will continue to agitate for improvements for the people of Shortland.
I rise today to table a petition on behalf of Katharine Marsh, a young woman from a farm near Kojonup in my electorate over O'Connor. I know Katharine is watching this morning so hello to Kojonup. Katherine has presented the parliament with a petition of 18,919 signatures regarding triple 0 call access in mobile blackspot areas. She has been campaigning to raise public awareness and lobbying the government to increase mobile blackspot funding such that all Australians can connect to an emergency service in their time of need wherever they may be.
Katherine's campaign arose through her own personal tragedy when her partner, Mick McInnes, died following a quad bike accident last year, leaving her widowed and pregnant. Sadly, the accident occurred in a mobile blackspot area with no triple 0 access. Mick was able to walk away from the accident but Katherine and her family were unable to raise the alarm by mobile in their time of need. The deployment of emergency services was delayed by over 20 minutes. Whether this time frame would have changed the outcome for Mick, no-one will ever know, but I give enormous credit to Katherine and her family for taking up this cause with such passion in their time of loss.
I know they recruited an army of willing volunteers Australia-wide and personally collected signatures from all over O'Connor. They engaged local government authorities from coast to coast and secured support from peak bodies like the Isolated Children's Parents' Association, the WA Farmers Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association.
As I table this petition today, I am pleased to report that the government is responding to the needs of regional Australia with more mobile phone towers. In June 2015, the government committed $100 million for the construction of new and upgraded towers across Australia. A total of 133 out of the 177 nominated mobile phone blackspots in my electorate will be eliminated at a cost of $53.4 million. The $60 million round 2 will be announced imminently, and during this year's election campaign the prime minister committed another $60 million for a third round. In addition, I will be urging the government to look at innovative solutions where private operators can tap into the backhaul of existing infrastructure to provide micronetworks that will deliver mobile phone and data service to areas that fall outside of the current commercial network coverage.
As a farmer living in a mobile blackspot area myself, I would welcome a reliable mobile phone service for safety and farming operations.
I conclude with optimism that, together, government and business using evolving technologies will provide mobile phone connectivity for all Australians. In tabling this petition I commend Katharine Marsh for her dedication to making sure that every Australian has 000 phone access regardless of their location.
The petition read as follows—
Document was not available at the time of publishing.
Petition received.
So much of the debate about Pauline Hanson and hate speech has been in the abstract but the impact of words is real. I want to read to the parliament some of the letters that I have received from students at a primary school in my electorate.
Dear Adam,
I am 12 years old. I live in Carlton with my 2 brothers, mother, and father. I am writing to you to express my feelings and worries about Pauline Hanson's opinion on Islam.
I find it hard to hear because my family and I follow the religion of Islam. And we are kind to people. Unlike Pauline Hanson's public statements, we are people who should not be feared. I don't like what she's saying about my religion because it goes to the media and the media shows to the world.
It's also affecting me because I am being called a terrorist. I don't like being called a terrorist because it puts me down and makes me upset. It upsets me because most of the time I am a normal grade 6 boy who lives in Australia. I love that Australia has freedom, I get a great education, I don't live in fear, I can play with my friends. I go for Carlton footy club, and I go for Real Madrid and Chelsea in football.
Adam, I would like to thank you and the Greens for not listening to Pauline Hanson's unkind words. If I could ask one more thing of you, it would be: ask Pauline to read this letter and when she's done tell her—is she still afraid of me? Hope she isn't.
In peace, Jibreel.
And 11-year-old Sondos wrote:
First Pauline Hanson targeted Asians, now Muslims. I mean, really? She hasn't even met us.
Now when I walk on the streets with my mum people stop and stare with us. They make me feel like I should be ashamed of wearing a hijab and being a Muslim.
Also when I went to a sports carnival I got called a terrorist and during the 800m race I stopped. This makes me feel so sad and scared.
And Ashwak wrote:
I'm an ordinary 10-year-old girl from a Muslim family in Carlton. I'm not a terrorist, drug dealer, or ISIS member. I'm the same as everyone and I believe everyone should be treated equally as a person. I think people should have a voice.
Elehi wrote:
I have seen on the street where a woman's hijab was pulled off her head. I ask why? Why did they do that? When Pauline Hanson says Muslims should be banned from Australia I am not scared. This is my place, this is my country, I call Australia home. But I am afraid for my future. Will I not be allowed a job or a home to live in?
Ayub wrote:
I look after my family and friends. I mostly try hard at school. I like living in Australia. I want to tell Pauline Hanson that Muslims mean peace.
And Hadya wrote:
Why do so many people hate us?
This is why it is so important that political leaders stand up to racism. It is why we should not be changing our laws to make it easier to say racist things. People who have not even become teenagers yet should not be asking why people hate them and should not have to stop in the middle of their sports carnivals. If we do not stand up to the likes of Pauline Hanson, it hurts children and their families.
I would like to start by commending the spirit of the mentions by the member for Melbourne about everybody's responsibility to stand up to racism and marginalisation of others, and to make sure that that is always the tone we set in this parliament.
Goldstein is made up of exceptional individuals. Today I want to pay gratitude to the wonderful women of Goldstein who make a significant contribution, and there are three in particular that need to be singled out today. First is Patricia Ilhan, who is the chair and founder of Australian Food Allergy Foundation. When the late telecommunications entrepreneur and businessman 'Crazy John' Ilhan and Trish discovered one of their daughters had severe anaphylaxis to tree nuts, they decided to act. Very little was being done for 10 years to investigate the growing problem of food allergies and anaphylaxis. With a gift of $1 million to help find a cure for anaphylaxis, the Ilhans backed Australian scientists find out more and work towards a cure.
The Australian Food Allergy Foundation has raised more than $2 million through a series of events, activities and galas, one of which I was very fortunate to attend recently. It was a wonderful night in tribute to John Ilhan as a result of his work and his legacy. This money is going towards research into vaccines and implementing allergy training in schools and kinders across Victoria, and I have no doubt their work will go on to influence the country as well as overseas.
Trish, you have shown incredible leadership in your role. You are not just a great contributor through the issues around allergies but also a philanthropist. Goldstein says thank you.
Today we also honour a woman who has sadly passed away, Margaret Watts. Margaret's sporting passion saw her become a foundation member of the Victorian Ladies Yacht Club at Sandringham. Together with many of her high schoolmates, they formed the club before they had any boats. Apparently, the reason for a separate yacht was due to the fact that women were not able or allowed to crew for men but, rather than complain, they acted. The ladies would ride their bikes from school to the club and sail VJs—a two-person sailing boat, for those of us not familiar—and it was here Margaret met some of her dearest friends, most of whom had their own boats. Thank you, Margaret. Your contribution continues and your legacy lives through the lives of others.
Finally, Dr Vicki Karalis, the president of the Sandringham Foreshore Association, has successfully campaigned for funding to protect our shoreline in Goldstein. During my regular shuffles—or runs, shall we say—I see the growing erosion along parts of our bayside shoreline, and it has progressed. It is up to people like Vicki who have taken action. The Sandringham Foreshore Association under Dr Karalis has fought for the rejuvenation of the foreshore, a vital asset in our community. Today, we give thanks to Trish, to Margaret and to Vicki—and all the wonderful women of Goldstein—for their leadership in our community.
I rise today in this place to speak about the Turnbull government's election commitment to the City of Townsville, and the fact that we would be the recipient of the first City Deal. However, on 21 October 2016, Prime Minister Turnbull signed an MOU with the New South Wales government regarding a City Deal for Sydney. He has sent a very clear message to the people of Townsville: he does not care about regional Queensland. It is very clear that the Turnbull government does not have a clear plan or direction for Townsville.
During the election, Labor led the charge for the Townsville stadium, seven months ahead of the Turnbull government. Along with the Queensland government, Townsville Enterprise, the Townsville Chamber of Commerce, the Townsville city council, the Townsville Bulletin and community members, we dragged the Turnbull government kicking and screaming to match Labor's commitment to deliver the Townsville stadium—and we are still waiting. It seems that the Turnbull government was not committed to the stadium then, and their actions to date prove this government still is not committed. When questioned during Senate estimates about the Townsville stadium, the government dodged questions. When asked by Senator McAllister about the elements that would be included in the city's deal and the responsibilities and progression to date, the government dodged the question by saying constructive conversations were happening. Well, to quote one of my favourite singers, Elvis Presley, Townsville needs:
A little less conversation, a little more action …
Townsville is in need of urgent infrastructure projects, as unemployment is over 13 per cent and youth unemployment is almost 20 per cent. We need action now. I hold, and I will continue to hold, the Turnbull government to account for their election commitments to Townsville. The Townsville stadium is a vital infrastructure project for our city, as it will foster business confidence and create over 1,000 much-needed jobs and opportunities for small business and local contractors. The state government has instigated an expression-of-interest process to encourage local businesses to lodge their interest and experience in relation to the construction of the stadium. I will also be urging the Turnbull government to ensure that the procurement process does create opportunities for local developers and businesses to get a fair go and to create local jobs.
It is becoming abundantly clear that Prime Minister Turnbull cares more about the south than he does about the north. This is a government lagging in every sense of the word. The Turnbull government promised the Townsville stadium aligned with the nation's first cities deal, and then gave it to his city mates in Sydney. He promised to have the cooperative research centre up and running by mid-2016; nothing has been achieved. He promised the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility more than a year ago; still not one project has been delivered. The Prime Minister needs to understand that he governs for the whole of the country and not just for those in southern cities. He needs to understand that regional, rural and remote Queensland is hurting and we need a hand up to kickstart our economies. I am more than happy to be the thorn in this government's side when it comes to fighting for Townsville.
Today I rise to talk about friendship. Nearly seven years ago, my mother rang me rather early, at about 5.30 in the morning, with an incredulous tone in her voice about a ridiculous news report that I was going to enter politics. There was much laughter at this prospect, which was immediately transformed into unwavering support. This mother's love for her children had no boundaries.
A year earlier, while I endured a contest not just at White City, which I was quite familiar with, but for White City, a young man between jobs came to work with me, running the pro shop. He was responsible for handling the cash and the members, some of whom could be most challenging. Josh upgraded our practices to ensure the safe handling of cash, which provided verification, and I observed his diplomatic but firm manner in dealing with certain members. At times he was touched with the wisdom of Solomon. The High Court gave us victory over our adversary, but the centre court was not ours. Josh asked if I would have a game with him and his girlfriend, Karen—quite serious, as he often was—and we played. The score at the start of a tennis game is love all. Karen, shortly after, accepted Josh's proposal. Josh went back into corporate life, and I was left contemplating my next career move.
Later that morning, after my mother's early call, Josh called and said there was something I did not know of him. He confessed that his first love was politics and that he wanted to be my campaign manager for preselection. I did not disclose to him that I did not know what preselection was. He called friends Bill Gough and Craig Brown, and we met at a pub the following night for a discussion. Bill was a fervent conservative and a great legal mind. Craig was a marketing genius—and everyone knows how marketers overstate things. We went to work on our campaign to win preselection for Bradfield, and I now knew what preselection was. I did not win it.
During this process I met with John Howard. Josh's advice was that, if I were unsuccessful in Bradfield, and if John were to suggest that I should run for Bennelong, I should under no circumstances accept that. I met with John. He was incredibly frank. He told me I would not win Bradfield but, in that event, would I contest Bennelong? I agreed. I did not always accept Josh's advice. Josh and John moved onto Bennelong. It was a great trip. Our bond of trust and respect grew. I went to Karen and Josh's wedding and the next day we travelled to Canberra without Karen, for our first week of sitting. Josh is now my senior adviser. Unfortunately I am running out of time, but Josh has moved on. Josh has taken a job with Pfizer—they are lucky—and our friendship will endure.
I understand it is the wish of the chamber that constituency statements continue for a further period of 30 minutes. There being no objections, the chair will allow that course to be taken.
It is my great privilege to talk a little bit about the Wine Industry Suppliers Australia, which is present in my electorate. Obviously, the wine industry is a particularly important industry for South Australia and for my electorate, and what we often do not focus on is all of the other industries that hang off the wine industry—the suppliers and the tourism that are present because of that. WISA exists to provide benefits to its members, focusing on recognition, promotion, education and advocacy, and representing and supporting supplies that operate anywhere in the wine industry value chain.
In particular, I would like to talk about two companies: Getaways SA and Vinpac International. Getaways SA is a multi-award winning tourism business offering exceptional food, wine and accommodation in the Barossa Valley. They are winners of multiple South Australian tourism awards and they have been inducted into the South Australian Tourism Hall of Fame. They are owned and operated by Steve and Kym Brown, who started in 1995, as often these businesses do, with a single bed and breakfast. They then expanded to have their first tour vehicle, which was FX Holden—a good start to any business to begin with a Holden, and particularly one of that vintage—a great car. On 4 November 2016, Getaways SA won the South Australian tourism award for Specialised Tourism Services and, in October, they won the tourism award at the Wine Industry Impact Awards hosted by the Wine Industry Suppliers association. It is a great business in the Barossa Valley, and it is always great to see businesses which start small and grow and excel in their chosen field, as Getaways has done.
I also recognise Vinpac International, which has, of course, formed a very prominent packaging company in the Barossa Valley and formed a partnership with Blue H2O Filtration, and they saw the companies taking out the packaging award. They have collaborated on the introduction and validation of reliable and user-friendly apparatus that is semi-automated and provides more information than the traditional technology for bottling and filtration processes. All of these things—these clever and sophisticated approaches—are important for the wine industry. I have a friend who works for Vinpac and so I know they employ a great number of people in the Barossa Valley and they are an example of innovation in our economy. Congratulations to both of those suppliers. There were many more and I hope the Wine Industry Suppliers association keeps on doing a good job in my electorate.
A few weeks ago, I was very pleased to have the Prime Minister visit Brisbane to discuss the government's economic plan and our city's infrastructure. I am delighted to report that the Turnbull government has committed $10 million towards the Brisbane's infrastructure planning, specifically to support the planning of public transport solutions, including the Cross River Rail and the Brisbane bus metro. It is important for Brisbane residents to know that the Turnbull government is not only thinking longer term about infrastructure planning, it is delivering funding for longer-term infrastructure planning right now under our Smart Cities program. Brisbane residents can have confidence that the federal government is actually investing in our longer-term future. Having the federal government play a coordinating role in unlocking the potential of our cities has caught the attention of many Australians, and not just those who work in planning, development or city services. That is because the Smart Cities program and this government's plan for Brisbane is about more than just delivering funding. It is about demanding better outcomes focused on the liveability of our city.
As the new member for Brisbane, I am dedicated to working collaboratively across all levels of government to better plan for the long-term needs of our city. My former roles as an economist in the water and electricity services gave me some insights into how the planning of some of our infrastructure and other services appears to sometimes lag behind urban development. I strongly support longer-term planning and funding of our city infrastructure.
I also want to stress how important it is that the two big public transport proposals, Cross River Rail and the Brisbane bus metro, should not be seen as competing projects—one supports trains and one supports buses. There should be little doubt that, on current growth projections, we will need better infrastructure to solve the public transport bottlenecks that are emerging in both modes of public transport. The two proposals are likely to be delivered according to their own merits and on their own time lines—one by the state government, which is responsible for our trains, and the other by the Brisbane City Council, which is responsible for our buses—but they should not be seen as competing projects. In fact, they are likely to be complementary in the sense that key public transport hubs in Brisbane should promote the ease of commuters switching between different modes of transport.
Importantly, the $10 million provided by the Turnbull government will support planning by bringing all of the parties together: the Commonwealth, the Queensland state government and the Brisbane City Council. It aims to assist planning specifically around how the Queensland government's Cross River Rail project and the Brisbane City Council's bus metro project will integrate, both in the development phase and operationally. I am really pleased to see this type of collaboration. I encourage my parliamentary and municipal colleagues at other levels of government to continue to work together in the spirit of corporation and in the best interests of the people of Brisbane.
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to address this place on a subject that is very close to my heart: small business. I do so with particular reference to a very vibrant and constructive group in my local electorate of Perth, the Maylands Business Association. The Maylands Business Association is a terrific network of small business owners who are organising themselves to make sure that they have networking events on a regular basis so they can keep up to date with important things that matter to them as they grow their own entities. The most recent one was on 2 November, a Wednesday night, held at Henry On Eighth. For those who are not aware, Henry On Eighth is a wonderful little cafe/bar that has just sprung up on Eighth Avenue in Maylands. The night was incredibly well attended. The theme of the night was client service delivery. Businesses from all over the district came together to exchange ideas as to how to grow and prosper.
The reason I think it is so important that we do everything we can to help promote small business is not only is it a key gateway to ensuring that we have the promotion of jobs as well as cottage industries to support local produce but also it is part of my history and my fabric growing up. My father, when he finished working in a hotel and driving a bread truck, decided the only way to try and put the family on the best and most prosperous path it could take was to start a small business. On that basis, he put himself through TAFE to get his real estate ticket and then ran his own real estate agency for about 15 years until he died about 10 years ago. We grew up in that environment of small business first hand and saw just how tough it can be to make ends meet and, at the same time, provide an environment for other people to gain employment.
In my former life before coming to this place, I was a barrister. It is not frequently known, but, effectively, you run your own practice as a small business. So I also felt the demands placed upon my practice as to what needs to occur just to make ends meet. That is why I was also very proud to be part of a federal Labor team which is putting its shoulder to the grindstone in order to assist small business. It is a team putting together a taxation relief package to reduce company tax, to make sure we cut red tape and to make sure we promote start-ups get finance to get on their way so to assist the 83 per cent of businesses in this country—over 2 million businesses—to just get a little bit further ahead. I was very proud to be part of the Maylands Business Association network. Well done to Councillor Catherine Ehrhardt as well as Michiel de Ruyter. Make sure you keep the good work going, and I cannot wait to see the next event.
On 26 October, I hosted the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chester MP, on the Sunshine Coast to show him some of our growing region's major infrastructure priorities.
The recently released draft South East Queensland Regional Plan shows the rapid growth that is expected over the next 25 years when the population is estimated to almost double to nearly 500,000 through expansion in the growth areas of Caloundra South, Beerwah, Landsborough and Glasshouse Mountains. For too long, the Sunshine Coast has not fared well for infrastructure investment, but I am happy to say, with the minister's help, this is changing, and not a moment too soon.
In September we announced the long-awaited upgrade of the $929.3 million Caloundra Road-Sunshine Motorway interchange project that will help meet the transport needs of the Sunshine Coast region. This region depends on quality infrastructure for the success of its major tourism and services industries as well as an increased quality of life for local residents. However, that is not where I, or my Sunshine Coast LNP colleagues, plan to rest.
I have mentioned the current Bruce Highway Upgrade Planning Study in this place before and today I intend to do so again. The Australian government has provided $6.4 million to the $8 million study that is being undertaken by the Queensland government. The study is planned to conclude in mid-2018, but we on the coast know that it must happen much sooner than that. We have repeatedly called on the Queensland government to fast-track that study to be completed in 2017, and I call on them again today to fast-track it. This is not for me or my family but for the tens of thousands of motorists who use this notorious stretch of road every day. It is overcrowded, dangerous and well past its sensible use-by date.
During the minister's visit, I was also able to explain the importance of another overdue transport infrastructure project—that is, the duplication of the north coast rail line. This is a line that is essentially the same as it was when first built more than 100 years ago, and our region has grown considerably since then. Promised but never delivered by Queensland Labor governments in the recent past, it was the LNP that finally put forward a proposal in 2015 to upgrade the line and provide more than 150 extra weekly services, improving passenger and freight transport reliability and creating more than 3,000 new jobs during construction.
With a booming population and a lifestyle that is second to none, it is time that the Sunshine Coast got our fair share of infrastructure investment.
Colleagues, today I would like to draw your attention to a notice that is on the Notice Paper in my name about the dairy industry and accessing farm household support. We have got a real problem. It needs real solutions, and we need a long-term plan for Australian agriculture. However, I would like to begin by acknowledging the work of the minister's office, the departmental staff in Human Services and Agriculture and Water Resources, and the ministerial advisers to Minister Joyce and Minister Tudge for their willingness to come halfway, to come to my office to meet with me and work together on a solution. Public servants: thank you. We really appreciate the effort that you are making.
Let me talk to the problem. In my electorate of Indi in north-east Victoria, I have approximately 120 dairy farmers and I am advised that between 50 and 60 of them are currently facing significant difficulties, because of the changes in the payment system and the dairy industry troubles; and that 20 per cent of them are in severe need. The answer to many of them is to go to Human Services—Centrelink—work with their rural financial counsellors, fill in the forms and apply for household assistance. I have to say: the stories that are coming across my desk are very sad, and who knows why?
That is why today's meeting with the public servants was so important. People's applications have gone missing. They have been unable to get the detail that they need in the time that they need. And it has been extraordinarily difficult for some dairy farmers to actually jump the hoops to get the support they need. As a consequence, they are without money. We all know what it means in any community in the lead-up to Christmas when the school year is finishing and you have got no money. It is bad enough at any time, but it is particularly bad at this time of year.
So what I am bringing today on behalf of my constituents of north-east Victoria is a plea for speedy action to resolve the issues that we are facing and to actually look at how we can change the system that makes it so complex in times of great need for farming families to access the support that they need. I understand there are problems; I understand it is complex, but I also know that we are clever enough to sort through this and put in place a system that works right across Australia when we have times of great financial hardship, whether it be in agriculture or in manufacturing. So today, for the constituents in the dairy industry and for all the dairy and agricultural farmers in north-east Victoria and in Australia, I would like to let you know that you have a strong advocate in me, a very effective advocate, someone who is able to come and work with all sides of parliament and in a really productive way with the departments to resolve the issues that we face.
On Sunday it was my great pleasure to meet up again with Vlad Salokovic from Geelong. Vlad is one of many thousands of people who were abused in an institution. In Geelong there were around 13 orphanages and other like institutions, so in our region there are many people who were impacted very seriously by their experiences as a child being raised in one of these orphanages.
It was a great day when our government announced a national redress scheme for victims of child sexual abuse in an institution, which of course was one of the key recommendations of the royal commission. I am absolutely delighted that the Attorney-General, George Brandis, and the Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, announced this very significant scheme, which will provide a best-practice Commonwealth redress scheme and invite other governments and other institutions to opt in. I want to acknowledge my great friend here, the member for Swan, who has also been an incredible advocate for this redress scheme.
Vlad is an incredibly brave man. He spent much of his childhood at Glastonbury boy's home in Geelong and also at St Augustine's Orphanage. He is part of a group called CLAN, the Care Leavers Australia Network, led by Leonie Sheedy, who has been an incredible advocate. She is also from Geelong. Leonie, Vlad and so many others have been brave enough to tell their incredible story.
Leonie told the Geelong Advertiser last year that she grew up in a Geelong orphanage with her brother. She said this happened in every town in Australia that had an orphanage, but Geelong had more orphanages than any other town outside a capital city. Children were farmed out to so-called 'good Catholic families' in the Western District, like farmers, and they were exploited and made to do a lot of domestic work and farm work. I think many families had good intentions when their children were sent to orphanages, but the level of abuse, as we have now discovered, was quite horrific.
It is a very significant day that our government has announced this national redress scheme. It does provide justice. The money will be significant, but it is not just about the money. It is about saying to these victims: 'We hear you. We hear that you deserve justice. We acknowledge your pain and suffering. We apologise for what has happened to you, and justice must be done.'
The Minister for the Environment and Energy has on his desk the final EIS for the proposed Western Sydney Airport. I have spoken in this chamber about the fact that the EIS pushes virtually every serious study into its impacts into the future, including looking at the effect on the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage area, the flight paths and the biodiversity offsets. What has outraged residents of the Blue Mountains is the cavalier way in which their views have been treated by the consultation process. Not a single public meeting has been held by the government in the lead-up to the draft EIS or since to discuss the issue and the process. In contrast, when Labor considered allowing civilian flights at Richmond RAAF Base, also in my electorate, the first step was an open, advertised public meeting, where key senior staff from the relevant departments and agencies answered questions and sought community input. In the mountains, all we got were information booths at a couple of local markets staffed by pleasant consultants with a pat phrase: 'Aeroplanes are quieter these days.'
When the draft EIS was actually released, we were granted a two-hour public display of documents. There was no-one with any technical expertise, and the information was the same as that which was on the website. After an outcry, the government relented and we got another display drop-in centre one afternoon.
This lack of genuine engagement has done nothing but create anxiety, anguish and anger. No wonder that around 80 per cent of the 5,000 written submissions received came from the Blue Mountains. For those who felt it might be useful to all parties to verbally discuss the plan, there was one invitation-only visit by the Prime Minister. People opposed to the airport were refused entry, including resident Jenny Dolan, who had her invitation withdrawn at the door. So there was no communication between departmental officials or ministers and the community to explore issues raised in submissions, no public meeting to seek to respond to them and no engagement at all at a local level. I apologise for how I am about to describe the bulk of people who were fighting for a fair go with this airport plan, but apparently my middle-aged, professional, articulate residents who were protesting this are too scary for a minister or bureaucrats to meet in a public place!
Since the release of the final EIS, three local residents representing RAWSA, No Badgerys Creek Airport and the Blue Mountains Conservation Society were invited to a one-hour meeting with the ministers for environment and infrastructure. The Blue Mountains council was also involved. But, on this basis alone, my community feels that the EIS process does not measure up to the standards that we should expect for a project of the size, scale and impact of this one. The most recent public meeting overflowing showed very clearly that my community feels betrayed.
I am proud to represent the people of Chisholm as part of the Turnbull government, which has always maintained a warm embrace of multiculturalism. Chisholm is the third most culturally diverse electorate. In the electorate of Chisholm on any weekend one can enjoy the richness and delights of so many different cultures, including the colour, vibrancy and warmth of the Chinese and Indian communities, and the life, movement and love of family events of the Greek and Italian cultures, to name a few.
The people of Chisholm contribute every single day by embracing different languages, foods and cultures, to create this diverse Australian way of life and the most successful multicultural nation on this earth. Quite often, festivals and events which are specifically aligned to different cultures are held in Chisholm, and they enable the people of Chisholm to celebrate in harmony and goodwill. These large community events require a lot of work, organisation and preparation by good, hardworking people who live in this diverse community of Chisholm, who give of their own time to make these events so successful.
A few weekends ago, I enjoyed two such amazing community festivals. Janaranjani 2016, the flagship event of the Telugu Association of Australia, was held at the Besen Centre, Burwood, which celebrated 25 years since its inception. A showcase of dance and superb entertainment—with over 200 participants of varying age groups: young children, teenagers and youth—was held. A feast for the senses, in the warm and embracing atmosphere of families, goodwill and friendship in the heart of Chisholm, took place this day. The people who worked hard to make this happen include President Dr Rama Rao Munuganti, Vice-President Mr Pavan Matampilly, and Reja Sekhar Guraja, Sharma Madiradju, Ali Mohammed, Ramesh Pathi, Shiva Pasumardi, Chandu Motupalli, Sumitrakaalyan Yerram and Anu Munganti and the other subcommittee members of this community.
The very next day I had the pleasure of attending the Greek Glendi Festival in Oakleigh, which is often fondly described as 'the epicentre of Greek culture'. Thanks to the passionate and dedicated President of the Greek Orthodox Community of Oakleigh and District, Angelo Sardellis, and his hardworking team, supported by the principal of Oakleigh Grammar, Mr Mark Robertson, there was a weekend of dance, culture, mouth-watering food and festivity, which was enjoyed by all. The warm and approachable Father George Adamakis, a man who is a wonderful, well-known member of the Oakleigh and surrounding community, was there, and many owners of small businesses added to the substance and buzz of the weekend, including the passionate Steve Robotis from Burnwood Barbecues and Sardellis catering. Many wonderful families, young children, grandparents and friends celebrated Greek culture in the heart of Chisholm. (Time expired)
Over the last few weeks, as in many towns across Victoria, we in Bendigo have gathered to engage in our local elections for the City of Greater Bendigo. I want to take a moment today to acknowledge the contribution of five of the councillors who have retired or not been successful in the local government elections. Those that I particularly wish to acknowledge are Mark Weragoda, Lisa Ruffell, Barry Lyons, Peter Cox and Rod Campbell.
Deputy Speaker, you may remember that, in the last few years in Bendigo, we have had quite a lot of controversy around the City of Greater Bendigo and a decision these councillors made to approve a planning application for the city's first mosque. These five councillors, as well as two others that were returned, did stand up for our small Bendigo Muslim community, did stand up for those that believed in Bendigo, did stand up for the constitutional right to exercise freedom of religion, and approved the application for the city's first mosque. It was a time when people from outside of Bendigo did not like the decision that was made by our council. Our town was thrown into the national headlines when we had a number of ugly protests about the council's decision—not just in our parks, but at council meetings. So, for these councillors, the last term of council was particularly hard, with their ability to make decisions as councillors called into question.
Perhaps it is bittersweet, but recently the previous council and the City of Greater Bendigo won a Planning Institute of Australia award. They won the President's Award for the handling of the planning application for the mosque. This award was made in recognition of the council's adherence to planning laws, policy and procedures; sound governing practice; and efforts to mitigate the social impact of a highly contentious issue on staff and citizens.
Perhaps it is bittersweet that this recognition has come after the elections, but I did want to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that these councillors were from all party political persuasions. Of the names I read out, some are unaligned, some are members of the Liberal Party, and some have formal links to the Labor Party. But they made a tough decision and some of them did pay the price at the elections.
I wish the new council the best of luck, and they can go forward knowing that the previous council did make the tough decisions when they needed to be made.
I recently had the pleasure of attending a great community event called Straight Outta Beenleigh. The event was held at the Beenleigh Town Square and it brought together many local organisations, who were able to showcase the services they provide to our local community. As I visited this community event, it reminded me of the number of organisations in our community that contribute to making it such a terrific place to live, and the services that are provided that allow the community to be what it is.
But it also gave me the opportunity to reflect that it was almost exactly 12 months since I was joined by the Prime Minister to officially open the Beenleigh Town Square. The project has transformed how the town of Beenleigh now functions. It replaced a six-way roundabout with what is now a friendly and open community facility which markets and other community groups can regularly use for public events. We have seen over the past 12 months a number of festivals and functions. There are now breakfast markets that we can go and enjoy on a Sunday morning, with some great coffee and some great food. And the Straight Outta Beenleigh event was just another in the long list of terrific community events that are now able to be held in Beenleigh.
One of the great things about the Beenleigh Town Square project was that it involved all three levels of government, and it shows the value of what the three levels of government working together can achieve in boosting our local economy. It has created new tourism opportunities, it has created jobs, and it has transformed, as I have said, the centre of Beenleigh.
I would like to congratulate the Beenleigh District Community Development Association for putting on the Straight Outta Beenleigh event and for bringing together the local organisations and entertainment for a tremendously successful community day. I would also like to mention some of the groups who got involved and thank them for their contribution and commitment to our local community. Beenleigh as a region has a history of nearly 150 years, and that 150 years of history has created a community that is extremely civic-minded and has people who are prepared to contribute through numerous community organisations. The Beenleigh Town Square, as an area where the community can gather and celebrate what it is to live in and around Beenleigh, is a terrific addition to our community, and I would like to thank everybody involved in the organisation of the event.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:02